Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > A.M. No. 1888-CFI September 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO I. PULIDO v. MAGNO B. PABLO

202 Phil. 336:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. 1888-CFI. September 30, 1982.]

FRANCISCO I. PULIDO, Complainant, v. JUDGE MAGNO B. PABLO, Respondent.

Francisco I. Pulido in his own behalf.

Vicente B. Millora for respondent Judge.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent District Judge of the Court of First Instance filed this motion for reconsideration of the Honorable Court’s decision in Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI raising for the first time the defense of res adjudicata/double jeopardy calling attention to the previous dismissal of Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI allegedly involving the same parties and cause of action. In Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI, entitled Benjamin Bantolino v. District Judge Magno B. Pablo, respondent Judge was charged with incompetence, ignorance of the law or deliberate violation of the law, while in Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI, captioned Francisco B. Pulido v. Hon. Magno B. Pablo, respondent Judge was charged with "doing and consenting to the doing of falsehood, falsification of public document, dishonesty. deceit, misrepresentation of facts, abuse of authority. oppression and/or serious misconduct or inefficiency unbecoming of a member of the bench and the bar" — consisting of falsification of the Court of Appeals’ decision and minutes of court hearings as well as insertion in the record of a false commitment order. Respondent Judge had been severely censured, reprimanded and fined in a previous administrative case and had two other pending administrative complaints against him.

The Supreme Court ruled that the defense of res adjudicata or double jeopardy cannot be invoked because there apparently is no identity of parties. interests or causes of action in the subject cases, and granting arguendo that res adjudicata or double jeopardy may be set up, it is nonetheless deemed waived for failure to interpose it at the earliest opportunity. Even if such a defense were considered by the dismissal of the first administrative case, still respondent remains guilty of falsifying the minutes of Criminal Case No. 266-A and the commitment paper in the same criminal case by making it appear that the time of imprisonment of accused Benjamin Bantolino will commence to run on February 8, 1977, instead of January 10, 1977.

Considering, however, the plea for mercy, compassion and humanity by both respondent and complainant. the Honorable Court modified its earliest decision and imposed on respondent District Judge who was compulsorily retired upon reaching age 70 on January 1, 1982, a fine equivalent to his salary for six months, deductible from his retirement benefits.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; RES ADJUDICATA; ESSENTIAL REQUISITES. — The requisites of res adjudicata are: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action (Aroc v. People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation, 81 SCRA 350; Obdulia vs.Ong,. 82 SCRA 337).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NO IDENTITY OF PARTIES BETWEEN THE TWO ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CASE AT BAR. — A cursory review-of the records would immediately manifest that there is no identity of parties between the two administrative cases. In the first case, Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI, the complainant therein is Benjamin Bantolino,the accused in Criminal Case N. 266-A, thus said administrative case is captioned Benjamin Bantolino vs, District Judge Magno B. Pablo. On the other hand, the complainant in the present case(Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI is Atty. Francisco Pulido and hence the case is captioned Francisco Pulido vs, Hon. Magno B, Pablo.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NO IDENTITY OF INTEREST IN THE CASE AT BAR. — The complainants in’the previous and present cases do not represent the same interest. While it is true that complainant Atty. Francisco Pulido acted as acounsel of Benjamin Bantolino in Criminal Case No. 266-A the lawyer-client relationship is not germane to the administrative cases they separately filed against respondent Judge. There is not even substantial identity of interest. The personal interest of Benjamin Bantolino in filing Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI can easily be distinguished from that of Atty. Francisco Pulido in the instant case (Adm. Matter No. l888-CFI), Atty. Francisco Pulido filed the present case not only as a private citizen but as a vigilant member of the Bar and as an officer of the court.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NO IDENTITY OF CAUSE OF ACTION. — It may be stressed that there is no identity of cause of action between Adm, Matter No. 733-CFI and the present case, Adm. Matter No, 1888-CFI. In Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI, respondent Judge is charged with incompetence, ignorance of the law or deliberate violation of the law whereas in Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI, respondent is charged with the following: "doing and consenting to the doing of falsehood, falsification of public document, dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation of facts, abuse of authority, oppression and/or serious misconduct or inefficiency unbecoming (of) a member of the bench and bar" — consisting of falsification of the Court of Appeals decision and minutes of court hearings as well as insertion in the record of a false commitment order.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; DOUBLE JEOPARDY; ESSENTlAL ELEMENTS. — The rule on double jeopardy provides that "there is identity between the two offenses not only when the second offense is exactly the same as the first, but also when the second offense is an attempt to commit the first or a frustration thereof, or when it necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information" (Francisco, V.J The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Criminal Procedure, 2nd ed. ([1969] p. 677, citing the cases of U.S. v. Lim Suco, 11 Phil. 484; U.S. v. Ledesma, 28 Phil. 431; People v. Martinez, 55 Phil. 6). And "An offense maybe said to necessarily include another when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former as alleged in the complaint or information. constitute the latter. And vice versa, an offense may be said to be necessarily included in another when the essential ingredients of the formcr constitute or form part of those constituting the latter" (Francisco, V.J., The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Criminal Procedure, 2nd ed. [1969] p. 692).

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR. — The rule on double jeopardy is not applicable to the case at bar. Undoubtedly, the following charges: doing and consenting to the doing of falsehood, falsification of public document, dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation of facts, abuse of authority, oppression and/or serious misconduct or inefficiency unbecoming a member of the bench and the Bar, and the specifications thereunder covered in the present case (Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI) do not necessarily include the charges of incompetence, ignorance of the law or deliberate violation of the law and the specific acts covered in the earlier case (Adm. Matter No. 733CFI) inasmuch as the essential elements or ingredients of the latter charges do not constitute the former. Conversely, the charges in the present case (Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI) may not be said to be necessarily included in the charges covered in Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI considering that the essential ingredients of the former charges do not constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; RES ADJUDICA TA; NOT SEASONABLY INVOKED WHEN SAME IS FIRST RAISED IN A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; CASE AT BAR. — The defense of res adjudicata was not seasonably invoked since respondent Judge initially raised the same only in the motion for reconsideration dated November 8, 1981. Atty. Pulido filed this complaint on April 6, 1978. Respondent failed to set up the defense of res adjudicata when he filed his comment dated June 19, 1974 in compliance with the first indorsement dated June 3, 1974 of the then Assistant to the Judicial Consultant, now Deputy Court Administrator Arturo B. Buena. Such failure to interpose the defense of res adjudicata at the earliest opportunity is fatal as it is deemed waived. (See Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., G.R. No, L-47847, July 31, 1981)

8. ID.; ID.; ID.; DOUBLE JEOPARDY; DEEMED WAIVED WHEN NOT INTERPOSED AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY. — Granting arguendo, that it was proper for respondent Judge to set up the defense of double jeopardy, it is nonetheless deemed waived for failure to interpose it at the earliest opportunity. The records amply show that respondent Judge brought before the attention of this Court, only when he filed on November 8, 1981, a motion for reconsideration, the fact that Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI was already dismissed per resolution of this Court dated July 14, 1977. Respondent Judge therefore could not have claimed ignorance of the outcome/dismissal of Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI at the time Adm, Matter No. 1888-CFI was filed by Atty. Francisco Pulido on April 6, 1978.

9. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROPER TIME TO RAISE THE DEFENSE. — The opportune time to raise the defense of double jeopardy as directed by Section 2 of Rule 117 is the period for the filing of a motion to quash.

10. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; COMPLAINT AGAINST A DISTRICT JUDGE; JUDGMENT RECONSIDERED AND MODIFIED WHERE BOTH RESPONDENT AND COMPLAINANT PLEADED FOR MERCY, COMPASSION AND HUMANITY. — Considering the plea for mercy, compassion and humanity by both respondent and complainant, the Supreme Court modified its decision dated October 30, 1981 and imposed on respondent District Judge a fine equivalent to his salary for six months, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.


R E S O L U T I O N


MAKASIAR, J.:


In Adm. Mat. No. 1888-CFI, entitled "Francisco Pulido v. Judge Magno Pablo", respondent Judge filed on November 16, 1981 his motion for reconsideration of the decision dated October 30, 1981.

In a sworn letter-complaint dated May 24, 1974, Benjamin Bantolino charged respondent District Judge Magno B. Pablo of the Court of First Instance, Branch XIII, Alaminos, Pangasinan, with "incompetence or ignorance of the law or deliberate violation of the law", because respondent Judge sentenced him for homicide through reckless imprudence to an indeterminate term of imprisonment ranging from." . . one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional in its minimum period to three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional in its medium period; ordered to reimburse the heirs of Ludovico Cabarlo, the victim, the medical and funeral expenses in the amount of P1,000.00, and to indemnify them in the amount of P12,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment as provided in Article 39, R.P.C., and with cost" (Emphasis ours).

In his comment dated June 19, 1974, respondent Judge said that he already corrected the decision attached to the record before its promulgation on May 17, 1974 by changing the word "with" into "without" before the words "subsidiary imprisonment" ; and that the copy of the decision delivered to Atty. Francisco Pulido, counsel of Benjamin Bantolino, was not corrected because his stenographer, Aurea V. Decena, delivered the same to Atty. Francisco Pulido without being aware of the correction and Atty. Pulido refused to return his copy to get even with respondent Judge.

In his recommendation dated July 1, 1977 to the then Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, then Associate Court of Appeals Justice Ricardo C. Puno, as then Acting Judicial Consultant, said:cralawnad

". . . respondent Judge states that before the promulgation of the decision in question on May 17, 1974, the word "with’, written in the original decision before the words subsidiary imprisonment, was duly corrected, and in its stead the word ‘without’ was written as evidenced by the minutes of the session of the court on May 17, 1974 (Annex ‘1., p. 18, Rollo); that when it was duly promulgated by then Vacation Judge Gregorio Legaspi, ‘the Decision was . . . "without subsidiary imprisonment" ; that the copy of the decision furnished to Atty. Pulido, counsel of the accused, by Cesar Ginez and Aurea Decena, messenger and stenographer of the court, respectively, was not corrected as the two court employees were not aware of the correction then; that when the two realized that the copy given to the lawyer was an uncorrected one, they together with Court Interpreter Leniente Ranoy, immediately asked Atty. Pulido to give back the copy so that it would be corrected to conform to the corrected original, ‘but Atty. Pulido refused and said that he will have it photostat because he will file charge against Judge Magno B. Pablo" (Vide: Annex "2", p. 19, Rollo).

"Respondent contends that the copy given to Atty. Pulido was not ‘the final and true copy’ of the corrected original decision, as ‘it was not certified by the Deputy or Clerk of Court’, that more than two weeks before the herein respondent received the instant complaint, the records of Criminal Case No. 266-A ‘had been forwarded to the Court of Appeals in connection with the appeal taken from the decision and it may be read therein that the decision was . . . "without subsidiary imprisonment."

"A judge has the power and authority to correct, amend, modify, or set aside his decision or judgment which has not yet become final or from which no appeal has as yet been perfected (Sec. 7, Rule 120, Rules of Court). Hence, respondent had the power and prerogative to cause the necessary change in the dispositive portion of his decision to correct a ‘typographical error’.

"Furthermore, there is no dispute that the questioned decision of respondent judge is now on appeal. Consequently, any administrative complaint arising therefrom is premature.

"WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that this case against District Judge Magno B. Pablo be dismissed (pp. 29-30, rec. of Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI, Emphasis supplied).

Pursuant to said recommendation, this Court issued the following resolution dated July 14, 1977:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"Administrative Matter No. 733-CFI (Benjamin Bantolino v. District Judge Magno B. Pablo). — The pertinent facts giving rise to the instant administrative case may be summarized as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The accused-complainant herein, Benjamin Bantolino, was found guilty of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, respondent judge, Magno B. Pablo, presiding. He was sentenced ‘to suffer imprisonment, according to Article 365, par. No. 2, of the Revised Penal Code and the indeterminate sentence law, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional in its minimum period to three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional in its medium period; ordered to reimburse the heirs of Ludovico Cabarlo, the victim, the medical and funeral expenses in the amount of P1,000.00, and to indemnify them in the amount of P12,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment as provided in Article 39, R.P.C., and with cost’ (italics ours). Judge Magno realized that there was a typographical error in the above decision and motu proprio corrected the same before it became final by changing the word ‘with’ to ‘without’ before the phrase ‘subsidiary imprisonment’. Counsel for accused-complainant, Atty. Francisco Pulido, who had earlier secured a copy of the decision with the typographical error, was required to surrender said copy of the decision for correction. Atty. Pulido refused to give aforesaid copy back, and allegedly said that he would ‘have it photostat to get even’ with the Judge. Thereafter, the present Letter-Complaint for incompetence or ignorance or deliberate violation of the law against respondent Judge was filed with this Court.

"Considering the foregoing the COMMENT of Judge Magno B. Pablo and the findings of the Judicial Consultant, Ricardo C. Puno, recommending dismissal of this case, this Court Resolved to — (1) DISMISS the administrative charge filed against Judge Magno B. Pablo, Court of First Instance, Pangasinan, for LACK of MERIT; and (2) require Judge Magno B. Pablo to formalize his charge within TEN (10) days from receipt hereof against Atty. Francisco Pulido for alleged [1] refusal to return for correction the copy of the decision with typographical error; [2] causing the filing of this complaint, and subjecting respondent judge to the trouble and harassment of an unfounded accusation, conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession" (pp. 33-34, rec. of Adm. Mat. No. 733-CFI).

On April 6, 1978, Atty. Francisco I. Pulido, filed a verified complaint against Judge Magno B. Pablo for "doing and consenting to the doing of falsehood, falsification of public document, dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation of facts, abuse of authority, oppression and/or serious misconduct of inefficiency unbecoming of a member of the bench and bar."cralaw virtua1aw library

The complaint docketed as Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI is an offshoot of Criminal Case No. 266-A filed in the sala of respondent Judge against Benjamin Bantolino for homicide thru reckless imprudence. * After trial, respondent Judge found the accused guilty as charged, and rendered judgment the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, finding that the prosecution had sufficiently established the guilt of the accused of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide charged in the information beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment, according to Art. 365, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, and the indeterminate sentence law, of one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional in its medium period to three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional in its medium period. The accused is also ordered to reimburse the heirs of Ludovico Cabarlo the medical and funeral expenses in the amount of P1,000.00 and to indemnify the heirs of the victim Ludovico Cabarlo the amount of P12,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment as provided in Art. 39, R.P.C., and with cost."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the absence of the respondent Judge who was on vacation leave for the period from May 16 to 31, 1974, it was Judge Gregorio A. Legaspi, the vacation Judge, who promulgated the decision on May 17, 1974 (p. 17, rec.).

On May 20, 1974, Accused filed a notice of appeal (p. 266, rec. of Crim. Case 266-A).

On May 23, 1974, Accused filed an appeal bond (pp. 258-263, rec. of Crim. Case 266-A).

On May 29, 1974, the records of Crim. Case No. 266-A were forwarded to the Court of Appeals by the then Clerk Of Court, now Municipal Judge Teofilo C. Chiong (p. 1, CA-G.R. No. L-16898-CR).

The appeal of the accused was Premised on the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DRUNKENNESS OF THE ACCUSED BENJAMIN BANTOLINO LED TO THE ACCIDENT IN QUESTION WHICH RESULTED IN THE DEATH OF LUDOVICO CABARLO.

"THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN THE HOMICIDE CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION" (p. 43, CA-G.R. No. L-16898-CR).

On May 13, 1976, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming the decision of the lower court (pp. 78-84, CA-G.R. No. L-16898-CR).

A motion for reconsideration dated June 17, 1976 was filed on the ground that "the court erred in concluding that the plain recklessness of appellant was clearly the proximate cause of the victim’s misfortune and subsequent death" (pp. 89-91, CA-G.R. No. L-16898-CR).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On June 25, 1976. the Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying the motion for reconsideration (p. 98, CA-G.R. No. L-16898-CR).

On September 27, 1976, Defendant-Appellant filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court presenting the following issues for resolution:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Whether or not the facts established by the prosecution are sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the plain recklessness of the appellant was the proximate cause of the victim’s misfortune and subsequent death.

2. Whether or not accused should be convicted on the basis of the surmises or conjectures (p. 108, CA-G.R. No. L-16898-CR).

In a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated October 4, 1976, the petition for review on certiorari files by defendant-appellant was denied.

"L-44185 (Benjamin Bantolino v. Court Of Appeals, Et. Al.). - The motion of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office for petitioner to admit petition for review, is GRANTED. Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Court resolved to DENY the petition, the question raised being factual and for insufficient showing that findings of fact by respondent court are unsupported by substantial evidence and for lack of merit" (p. 78, rec. of L-44185).

On October 4, 1976, a copy of the decision was transmitted to the Court of Appeals with instructions to return the records of the cause to the lower court for execution of judgment (p. 81, rec. of L-44185).

It appears from the records that the defense of respondent Judge consists mainly of a denial of the following specified acts charged in the complaint:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. On or about August 25, 1977, the respondent, taking advantage of his official position as CFI Judge in Alaminos, Pangasinan, and exercising undue influence over his personnel and gravely abusing his authority caused the preparation, the signing and insertion into the record of Criminal Case No. 266-A a false document entitled ‘Minutes’ (Annex A, p. 15, rec.), knowing that such minutes never existed because the true minutes of the May 17, 1974 hearing is found on page 253 of the records of said case (Annex B, p. 16, rec.).

"2. The said false minutes contain a false statement of fact to the effect that it was Jaime V. Ariston who acted as stenographer when in truth and in fact it was Carmelita de Castro who was the stenographer during the said hearing, as shown by the Affidavit)Annex D, p. 18, rec.). of Elpidio C. Balan, who acted as Interpreter for the same hearing.

"3. Upon receipt of the appealed decision from the Court of Appeals, in CS-G.R. No. 16898-CR (Criminal Case 266-A), the respondent issued a commitment order (Annex E, p. 19, rec.) of the body of the accused Benjamin Bantolino addressed to the Provincial Warden of Pangasinan in which it was made to appear that his imprisonment will commence to run from the ‘8th day of February, 1977’ when in truth and in fact it should commence on January 10, 1977, as shown by another commitment Order (Annex F, p. 20, rec.) also signed by the respondent, which is the one attached to the records of the case.

"4. The respondent deliberately altered the decision as affirmed and quoted in the Court of Appeals’ decision by changing the word ‘with’ to ‘without’ in its dispositive portion, such that the phrase which reads ‘with subsidiary imprisonment’ quoted in the order of commitment (Annexes E and F, pp. 19-20, rec.). A certified xerox copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals is found on pages 22-30 of the records of this administrative case.

"5. The respondent affirmed under oath that the decision of the Court of Appeals in said criminal case contains a typographical error in misstating the word ‘with’ when in truth and in fact the decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals says ‘with subsidiary imprisonment’ and the ‘out’ is an insertion between the words ‘with’ and ‘subsidiary’.

"6. In the reply of Judge Pablo as complainant in Adm. Case No. 1837 (Pablo v. Pulido), he denied under oath his signature on the commitment paper marked as Annex E hereof, stating that he signed on the other commitment paper [Annex F, with the date of commencement written as 10th of January, 1977, p. 19, rec.]. The Provincial Warden of Pangasinan, however attests (Annex F, p. 21, rec.) that the original of Annex E was duly signed by the respondent and that there is no other commitment paper pertaining to Benjamin Bantolino except that one [same annex] which is on file in his office" (pp. 74-89, rec.).

Unfortunately, however, respondent’s denial was brushed aside by this Court in the decision dated October 30, 1981.

Significantly, it did not escape the attention of this Court the addition defense interposed by respondent Judge which in effect raised the defense of res adjudicata when he averred:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The attention of this Honorable Court is earnestly called to the fact that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. In Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI (Benjamin Bantolino v. District Judge Magno B. Pablo), this same particular charge had already been dismissed.

x       x       x


"This decision of this Honorable Court has long been final. How could this same Honorable Supreme Court now say another thing on the same matter?" (pp. 2-3, Motion for Reconsideration, Italics supplied).

The defense of res judicata is not well-taken. The requisites of res adjudicata are: (1) the former judgment must be final; (a) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action (Aroc v. People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation, 81 SCRA 350; Obdulia v. Ong, 82 SCRA 337).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A cursory review of the records would immediately manifest that there is no identity of parties between the two administrative cases. In the first case, Adm. Matter NO. 733-CFI, the complaint therein is Benjamin Bantolino, the accused in Criminal Case No. 266-A, thus said administrative case is captioned Benjamin Bantolino v. District Judge Magno B. Pablo. On the other hand, the complaint in the present case (Adm. Matter NO. 1888-CFI) is Atty. Francisco Pulido and hence the case is captioned Francisco Pulido v. Hon. Magno B. Pablo.

The complainants in the above-said cases do not represent the same interest. While it is true that complainant Atty. Francisco Pulido acted as the counsel Benjamin Bantolino in Criminal Case No. 266-A, the lawyer-client relationship is not germane to the administrative cases they separately filed against respondent Judge. There is not even substantial identity of interest. The personal interest of Benjamin Bantolino in filing Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI can easily be distinguished from that of Atty. Francisco Pulido in the instant case (Adm. Mat. No. 1888-CFI). Atty. Francisco Pulido filed the present case not only as a private citizen but as a vigilant member of the Bar and as an officer of the court.

Benjamin Bantolino instituted the first administrative case against respondent for ignorance of the law or violation of the law because respondent imposed subsidiary imprisonment on him, which is not authorized by the law.

Bantolino filed the first administrative case against respondent primarily in his interest as the accused in the criminal case; while Atty. Francisco Pulido filed the present administrative charge as an officer of the court, as a member of the Bar and as private citizen, not for the vindication of his personal interest but for the promotion of public interest — to discipline an erring member of the Judiciary to improve the administration of justice and thereby enhance public confidence or faith in the Judiciary.

Moreover, it may be stressed that there is no identity of cause of action between Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI and the present case, Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI. In Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI, respondent Judge is charged with incompetence, ignorance of the law or deliberate violation of the law (p. 29, rec. of Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI) whereas in Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI) whereas in Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI, respondent is charged with the following: "doing and consenting to the doing of falsehood, falsification of public document, dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation of facts, abuse of authority, deceit, misrepresentation of facts, abuse of authority, deceit, misrepresentation of facts, abuse of authority, oppression and/or serious misconduct or inefficiency unbecoming (of) a member of the bench and bar" (p. 2, Complaint, p. 2, rec.) — consisting of falsification of the court of Appeals decision and minutes of court hearings as well as insertion in the record of a false commitment order.

Even if WE apply by analogy, one of the essential requisites of the well-known doctrine of double jeopardy in criminal law — the rule of identity of offenses, WE see no reason to disturb the conclusion reached by this Court. The rule provides that "there is identity of offenses not only when the second offense is exactly the same as the first, but also when the second offense is exactly the same as the first, but also when the second offense is an attempt to commit the first or a frustration thereof, or when it necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information" (Francisco, V.J., The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Criminal Procedure, 2nd ed. [1969] p. 677, citing the cases of U.S. v. Lim Suco, 11 Phil. 484; U.S. v. Ledesma, 28 Phil. 431; People v. Martinez, 55 Phil. 6 Italics supplied).

And "A(n) offense may be said to necessarily include another when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And vice-versa, an offense may be said to be necessarily included in another when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter" (Francisco, V.J., The Revised Rules of court in the Philippines, Criminal Procedure, 2nd ed. [1969] p. 692).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The above-mentioned rule is not applicable. Undoubtedly, the following charges: doing consenting to the doing of falsehood, falsification of public dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation of facts, abuse of authority, oppression and/or serious misconduct or inefficiency unbecoming a member of the bench and Bar, and the specifications thereunder covered in the present case (Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI) do not necessarily include the charges of incompetence, ignorance of the law or deliberate violation of the law and the specific acts covered in the earlier case (Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI), inasmuch as the essential element or ingredients of the latter charges do not constitute the former. Conversely, the not be said to be necessarily included in the charges covered in Adm. Matte No. 733-CFI considering that the essential ingredients of the former charges do not constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.

Furthermore, the defense of res adjudicata was not seasonably invoked.

It may be noted that respondent Judge initially raised the defense of res adjudicata only in the motion for reconsideration dated November 8, 1981. Atty. Pulido filed this complaint on April 6, 1978. Respondent failed to set up the defense of res adjudicata when he filed his comment dated June 19, 1974 in compliance with the first indorsement dated June 3, 1974 of the then Assistant to the Judicial Consultant, now Deputy Court Administrator Arturo B. Buena. Such failure to interpose the defense of res adjudicata at the earliest opportunity is fatal as it deemed waived.

Thus, in the case of Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, Et. Al. (G.R. No. L-47847, July 31, 1981), WE ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Section 2, Rule 9, Revised Rules of Court of 1964, in no uncertain language, provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 2. Defense and objections not pleaded deemed waived. — Defense and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived; . . . .

"All defenses therefore not interposed in a motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed waived (Santiago, Et. Al. v. Ramirez, Et Al., L-15237 May 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 157, 162; Torreda v. Boncaros, L-39832, January 30, 1976, 69 SCRA 247, 253).

"Thus, the defense of res adjudicata when not set up either in a motion to dismiss or in an answer, is deemed waived. It cannot be pleaded for the first time at the trial or on appeal (Phil. Coal Miner’s Union v. CEPOC, Et Al., L-19007, April 30, 1964, 10 SCRA 784, 789.).

Finally, as already mentioned hereinabove, the defense of double jeopardy will not lie. In the same vein, granting arguendo, that it was proper for respondent Judge to set up the defense of double jeopardy, it is nonetheless deemed waived for failure to interpose it at the earliest opportunity.

Section 2, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of court in the Philippines explicitly provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Motion to quash — grounds. The defendant may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

"(h) That the defendant has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the offense charged.

"x       x       x

And "if the defendant does not move to quash the complaint or information before he pleads, he shall be deemed to have waived all objections which are grounds for a motion to quash. The only exception to this rule is when the information fails to charge an offense and the court is without jurisdiction of the Court)" [Martin, R.G., Rules of Court in the Philippines, Criminal Procedure, 3rd ed. (1972), p. 390].

The records amply show that respondent Judge brought before the attention of this Court, only when he filed on November 8, 1981, a motion for reconsideration, the fact that Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI was already dismissed per resolution of this Court dated July 14, 1977.

Respondent Judge therefore could not have claimed ignorance of the outcome/dismissal of Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI at the time Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI was filed by Atty. Francisco Pulido on April 6, 1978. Well-established is the rule that the doctrine of jeopardy as a defense is an exception and, therefore, should be raised at an opportune time. xxx (U.S. v. Claveria, 29 Phil. 556; People v. Cabero, 61 Phil. 127). "The immunity must be ‘specially’ pleaded (14 Am. Jur. 958; Branch v. State, supra; State v. Bohn, 248 P. 119; People v. McDonald, supra; State v. Harper, 184 S.W. 2d 601; Driver v. Seay, 32 S.E. 2d 87). People v. Casiano, G.R. No. L-15309. Feb. 16, 1961" [See Francisco, V.J., The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Criminal Procedure, pp. 704-705].

The opportune time to raise the defense of double jeopardy as directed by Section 2 of Rule 117 is the period for the filing of a motion to quash.

It is therefore apparent that the parties and the causes of action or issues in the two cases are different. Therefore, neither the defense of double jeopardy nor res adjudicata will lie.

Even if such a defense were considered by the dismissal of the first administrative case, still the respondent remains guilty of falsifying (1) the minutes of the hearing of May 17, 1974 in Criminal Case NO. 266-A; and (2) the commitment paper in the same criminal case by making it appear that the time of imprisonment of accused Benjamin Bantolino will commence to run on February 8, 1977, instead of January 10, 1977.

It should be also noted that respondent Judge, for ignorance of the law, was severely censured, reprimanded and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to one month salary in a decision in Adm. Mat. No. 604-CFI entitled "Teofilo Humilde, Complainant versus Magno Pablo, Respondent" promulgated on February 20, 1981.chanrobles law library

He has also two pending cases, namely, Adm. Mat. No. 513-CFI, entitled "Santiago Atcha, Complainant, versus Judge Magno Pablo, Respondent" for incompetence and ignorance, and Adm. Mat. No. 2656-CFI, entitled "Pedro Braganza, Jr., Complainant, versus Judge Magno Pablo, Respondent" for gross and willful violation of the law, partiality, dishonesty, conduct unbecoming a judge, and incompetence.

However, respondent strongly appeals to the humanity and mercy of the Court, invoking his 35 years of government service, including ten (10) years in the Judiciary and manifesting that he was compulsorily retired upon reaching age 70 on January 1, 1982; and that he has not accepted any single centavo from any litigant during his 10-year stint in the Bench.

On the other hand, complainant Francisco Pulido, who affirmed that "time has healed wounded feelings", and accordingly prays for "peace and mercy — justice with compassion", because he firmly believes that "no man is perfect and respondent is a man", even as said complainant concedes that "all the points therein (motion for reconsideration) raised have been passed upon judiciously" by this Court.

Atty. Vicente Millora, counsel for the respondent, filed on July 5, 1982 a manifestation dated June 23, 1982, stating that both respondent and his wife are sickly and urgently need further medical attention, including an operation of respondent’s wife which will depend on the modest retirement gratuity that may be accorded to him by this Court.

Considering the plea for mercy, compassion and humanity by both respondent and complainant, the dispositive portion of the decision dated October 30, 1981 is hereby modified to read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, RESPONDENT IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO PAY A FINE EQUIVALENT TO HIS SALARY FOR SIX (6) MONTHS, WHICH SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

"SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

Barredo, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Plana and Escolin, JJ., concur in the result.

Aquino, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., took no part.

Vasquez, J., In the result, with exception to the unqualified application of technical rules of procedure to an administrative case.

Endnotes:



* Three (3) administrative cases emanated from Criminal Case No. 266-A, namely: Adm. Matter No. 733-CFI (Benjamin Bantolino v. District Judge Magno B. Pablo), Adm. Matter No. 1837 (Judge Magno B. Pablo v. Atty. Francisco I. Pulido), and Adm. Matter No. 1888-CFI (Francisco I. Pulido v. Judge Magno B. Pablo).




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-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-31276 September 9, 1982 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-31854 September 9, 1982 - NICANOR T. SANTOS v. ROSA GANAYO

    202 Phil. 16

  • G.R. No. L-32260 September 9, 1982 - RAYMUNDA VDA. DE SAN JUAN, ET AL. v. SIXTO TAN

    202 Phil. 31

  • G.R. No. L-38579 September 9, 1982 - JULIET T. DIOQUINO v. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 35

  • G.R. No. L-39154 September 9, 1982 - LITEX EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40641 September 9, 1982 - FILOMENO ABROT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 53

  • G.R. No. L-42335 September 9, 1982 - PEDRO AMIGABLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-52410 September 9, 1982 - FLORO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 66

  • G.R. No. L-40791 September 11, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MALATE

    202 Phil. 74

  • G.R. No. L-41115 September 11, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48756 September 11, 1982 - K.O. GLASS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. MANUEL VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-49524 September 11, 1982 - LEONARDO GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 151

  • G.R. No. L-59825 September 11, 1982 - ERNESTO MEDINA, ET AL. v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME

    202 Phil. 163

  • G.R. No. L-60368 September 11, 1982 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 172

  • A.C. No. 2784-M September 21, 1982 - CECILIO P. IYOG v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO

    202 Phil. 175

  • G.R. No. L-23106 September 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO EMANENCE

    202 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-28774 September 21, 1982 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 200

  • G.R. No. L-27886 September 21, 1982 - CELSO VALERA v. DOMINGO BAÑEZ

    202 Phil. 193

  • G.R. No. L-29255 September 21, 1982 - LEONARDO MIÑANO, ET AL. v. ALBERTO MIÑANO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 213

  • G.R. No. L-48547 September 21, 1982 - ALFONSO ANGLIONGTO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 215

  • G.R. No. L-55315 September 21, 1982 - WILLIAM COLE, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA CASUGA VDA. DE GREGORIO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 226

  • G.R. No. L-56014 September 21, 1982 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. JOSE TECSON

    202 Phil. 240

  • G.R. No. L-56902 September 21, 1982 - CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 249

  • G.R. No. L-57892 September 21, 1982 - ANASTACIO AREVALO v. VALENTIN QUILATAN

    202 Phil. 256

  • G.R. No. L-59962 September 21, 1982 - RICARTE B. VILLEGAS v. RAMON MONTAÑO

    202 Phil. 265

  • G.R. No. L-22414 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 270

  • G.R. No. L-36850 September 23, 1982 - ROSARIO PEREZ, ET AL. v. PILAR ONG CHUA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 287

  • G.R. No. L-50905 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO JUMAWAN

    202 Phil. 294

  • G.R. No. L-52178 September 28, 1982 - DEMETRIO ERNESTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 310

  • A.C. No. 439 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: QUINCIANO D. VAILOCES

    202 Phil. 322

  • A.C. No. 681 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO GUEVARA v. MAXIMO CALALANG

    202 Phil. 328

  • A.M. No. 1879-MJ September 30, 1982 - ROSALITO FAJARDO v. GUALBERTO B. BACARRO, SR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 332

  • A.M. No. 1888-CFI September 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO I. PULIDO v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    202 Phil. 336

  • A.M. No. 2415-CFI September 30, 1982 - TOMAS SHAN, JR. v. CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO

    202 Phil. 354

  • A.M. No. P-2710 September 30, 1982 - BARBARA PIOQUINTO v. LUCRECIA A. HERNANDEZ

    202 Phil. 360

  • G.R. No. L-25778 September 30, 1982 - JOESTEEL CONTAINER CORPORATION v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCING CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 364

  • G.R. No. L-26243 September 30, 1982 - CLARA REGALARIO v. NORTHWEST FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 366

  • G.R. No. L-26289 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: JUAN N. PECKSON v. GABRIEL F. ANADASE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 374

  • G.R. No. L-27695 September 30, 1982 - ANTONIO CALLANTA v. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 377

  • G.R. No. L-27819 September 30, 1982 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 381

  • G.R. No. L-28501 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ARCE v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

    202 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-28996 September 30, 1982 - MAXIMO SANTOS, ET AL. v. GENERAL WOODCRAFT AND DESIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-29086 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO GOMEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 395

  • G.R. No. L-29590 September 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-29636 September 30, 1982 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. MARINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL.

    202 Phil. 410

  • G.R. No. L-30353 September 30, 1982 - PATRICIO BELLO v. EUGENIA UBO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 415

  • G.R. No. L-30452 September 30, 1982 - MERCURY DRUG CO., INC. v. NARDO DAYAO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 424

  • G.R. No. L-30455 September 30, 1982 - MARIA LANDAYAN, ET AL. v. ANGEL BACANI, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-30675 September 30, 1982 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 445

  • G.R. No. L-30994 September 30, 1982 - OLIMPIA BASA, ET AL. v. ANDRES C. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 452

  • G.R. No. L-31226 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BELLO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-32383 September 30, 1982 - BAZA MARKETING CORPORATION v. BOLINAO SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION SERVICE, INC.

    202 Phil. 478

  • G.R. No. L-32860 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MARQUEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 488

  • G.R. No. L-33995 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO C. DE GUZMAN v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-34200 September 30, 1982 - REGINA L. EDILLON, ET AL. v. MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-34947 September 30, 1982 - ESTEBAN MEDINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 515

  • G.R. No. L-37431 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ENTERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-37733 September 30, 1982 - ALMARIO T. SALTA v. JESUS DE VEYRA

    202 Phil. 527

  • G.R. No. L-38603 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIANO CHAVEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-38728 September 30, 1982 - CONRADO V. MACATANGAY v. CHAIRMAN OF COMMISSION ON AUDIT

    202 Phil. 545

  • G.R. No. L-39026 September 30, 1982 - SOTERO RECTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 553

  • G.R. No. L-39401 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO SIMBRA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-39644 September 30, 1982 - EDUARDO BIEN, ET AL. v. DELFIN VIR. SUNGA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 565

  • G.R. No. L-39716 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO D. GABIANA

    202 Phil. 577

  • G.R. No. L-40842 September 30, 1982 - BENJAMIN A. G. VEGA, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 587

  • G.R. No. L-41052 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY GASENDO

    202 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-43783 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM BOKINGKITO TERANO

    202 Phil. 610

  • G.R. No. 44033 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO B. BESO, JR.

    202 Phil. 618

  • G.R. No. L-44408 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SAMBILI

    202 Phil. 629

  • G.R. No. L-45430 September 30, 1982 - DESA ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-45436 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PON-AN

    202 Phil. 653

  • G.R. No. L-45679 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MENDOZA

    202 Phil. 660

  • G.R. Nos. L-46068-69 September 30, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46125 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON ALVIS, JR.

    202 Phil. 682

  • G.R. No. L-48478 September 30, 1982 - AGUSMIN PROMOTIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48727 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH D. LEONES

    202 Phil. 703

  • G.R. No. L-48747 September 30, 1982 - ANGEL JEREOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 715

  • G.R. No. L-49307 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR MALATE

    202 Phil. 721

  • G.R. No. L-49990 September 30, 1982 - UNITED STATES LINES, INC. v. AMADO INCIONG, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 729

  • G.R. No. L-50378 September 30, 1982 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN RELOVA

    202 Phil. 741

  • G.R. No. L-51042 September 30, 1982 - DIONISIO MALACORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 756

  • G.R. No. L-52059 September 30, 1982 - BONIFACIA CALVERO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 774

  • G.R. No. L-52061 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALUSTIANO LOOD

    202 Phil. 792

  • G.R. No. L-53627 September 30, 1982 - CAPITAL GARMENT CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 797

  • G.R. No. L-53983 September 30, 1982 - LUCIANA DALIDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54204 September 30, 1982 - NORSE MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-54272-73 September 30, 1982 - JUAN C. CALUBAQUIB v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 817

  • G.R. No. L-54280 September 30, 1982 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 850

  • G.R. No. L-55225 September 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF CATALINO JARDIN, ET AL v. HEIRS OF SIXTO HALLASGO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 858

  • G.R. No. L-56624 September 30, 1982 - DARNOC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AYALA CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 865

  • G.R. Nos. L-56950-51 September 30, 1982 - M. F. VIOLAGO OILER TANK TRUCKS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 872

  • G.R. No. L-57387 September 30, 1982 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST FACULTY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 881

  • G.R. No. L-58187 September 30, 1982 - REMEDIOS VELASCO VDA. DE CALDITO v. ROSALIO C. SEGUNDO, ETC., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 900

  • G.R. No. L-58452 September 30, 1982 - RAZA APPLIANCE CENTER v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA

    202 Phil. 903

  • G.R. No. L-58610 September 30, 1982 - BABELO BERIÑA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE MARITIME INSTITUTE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 908

  • G.R. No. L-58623 September 30, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES

    202 Phil. 912

  • G.R. No. L-58820 September 30, 1982 - BENITO E. DOMINGUEZ, JR. v. FILIPINAS INTEGRATED SERVICES CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 916

  • G.R. No. L-59234 September 30, 1982 - TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA, INC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 925

  • G.R. No. L-59935 September 30, 1982 - FLORA DE GRACIA REGNER VDA. DE DAYRIT v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

    202 Phil. 937

  • G.R. No. L-60367 September 30, 1982 - VENUSTIANO T. TAVORA v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO

    202 Phil. 943

  • G.R. No. L-60602 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: MA. DEL SOCORRO SOBREMONTE, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 949

  • G.R. No. L-60637 September 30, 1982 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 959

  • G.R. No. L-60842 September 30, 1982 - ROLANDO DIMACUHA v. ALFREDO B. CONCEPCION

    202 Phil. 961