Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > A.M. No. 2415-CFI September 30, 1982 - TOMAS SHAN, JR. v. CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO

202 Phil. 354:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. 2415-CFI. September 30, 1982.]

TOMAS SHAN, JR., Complainant, v. HON. CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO, District Judge, Court of First Instance, Branch IX, Cebu City, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


In a petition for certiorari and preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance, Respondent. Judge issued a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of a writ of execution issued by the City Court. Complainant herein filed a motion to lift said restraining order. Respondent Judge failed to act on said motion for seven months. Hence, the instant administrative recourse. Respondent Judge claimed that he lacked personnel in his sala, and that the Clerk of Court failed to keep him posted on the status of cases pending in his sala.

The Supreme Court held that respondent violated Section 11(1) Article X of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 when he failed to act on the motion within 90 days after it was submitted for resolution stating that lack of personnel is not an acceptable justification for his inaction.


SYLLABUS


ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST A JUDGE; FAILURE TO ACT ON MOTION WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED 90-DAY PERIOD. — Although there was no showing that the delay of seven (7) months in resolving a motion submitted for decision was motivated by malice, ill-motive or merely done to do injustice against a party-litigant, We cannot, however, tolerate such undue delay of the respondent judge without calling his attention to the express mandate of Section 11(1) Article X of the Constitution and Section 5, R.A.. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948. The law always abhors delay in the dispensation of justice. His failure to act within the 90-day period attributed to lack of key personnel and the omission of his deputy clerk of court to keep him posted with the status of all pending cases is no excuse. This Court, under the circumstances, cannot accept the proffered justification of such inaction of the respondent judge for seven (7) months which clearly defeats the intent and spirit of Section 11(1) Article X of the Constitution and Section 5 Republic Act 296, and is, therefore an inexcusable infringement thereof.


R E S O L U T I O N


DE CASTRO, J.:


District Judge Candido C. Aguinaldo of the Court of First Instance, Branch IX, Cebu City stands administratively charged, in a letter-complaint not under oath, 1 for alleged gross negligence and/or incompetence for his refusal or failure without just cause, to:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) Lift his restraining order dated August 13, 1979 restraining the City Court and City Sheriff of Cebu City from proceeding with the execution of the final judgment of said Court in Civil Case No. R-18599 in favor of private respondents who were plaintiffs in the said case: and

"(2) Resolve — i.e., dismissing the said petition for certiorari for lack of merit, after the said petition was submitted for decision seven (7) months ago, on October, 1979."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears that in an ejectment suit filed by the mother of the complainant, Juanita Bereso Go Shan, on June 21, 1976, against Delfinito Montesclaros for non-payment of rentals, in the City Court of Cebu City docketed as Civil Case No. R-18599, Judge Julian Pugoy of the aforesaid court, rendered a decision on March 29, 1977 in favor of the plaintiff therein which became final and executory on the basis of court order of October 25, 1978. Subsequently, a writ of execution and possession was issued on November 3, 1978.

Defendant in Civil Case No. R-18599, Delfinito Montesclaros assailed the decision in a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and damages in the Court of First Instance, Branch IX, Cebu City presided by herein respondent Judge Candido C. Aguinaldo, docketed as Civil Case No. R-18342 entitled "Delfinito Montesclaros v. Hon. Judge Julian Pugoy, et al," praying for immediate issuance of restraining order.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

On August 13, 1979, respondent issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondents therein from executing the judgment in Civil Case No. R-18599 of the Cebu City Court and from taking possession of the premises of the house and its surroundings presently occupied by the petitioners.

For failure to act on the motion to lift the restraining order and resolve the petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and damages, submitted for decision on October 1979, followed by a motion for resolution filed on February 27, 1980, complainant Tomas Shan Jr. instituted the instant administrative charge in a letter-complaint dated May 26, 1980 for gross negligence and/or incompetence, praying for appropriate disciplinary action against respondent judge.

In his letter-complaint, Tomas Shan Jr. claimed that they are greatly prejudiced by the inaction of respondent judge because the City Court’s decision in their favor in an ejectment suit filed by his late mother Juanita Bereso Go Shan against Delfinito Montesclaros became final and executory on October 25, 1978, and a writ of execution and possession was issued on November 3, 1978 which, when served upon by the City Sheriff, was physically resisted by the defendant Montesclaros. In furtherance of his charges, complainant contended:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The worst part is that Judge Aguinaldo issued his restraining order ex-parte, and refused or failed to lift it up to now although said Judge was informed by the private respondent that even before his right to appeal had prescribed, petitioner had not filed any approved supersedeas bond to guarantee payment of unpaid rentals at P100 per month from January 1976 up to the present, or a period of four (4) years now." 2

Commenting on the charges, respondent judge, on July 18, 1980, brought to the attention of this Court the shortage of personnel in his sala where he stated that his sala has no branch clerk of court and legal researcher; that out of the three (3) stenographers of the court, only stenographer Erlinda Fanlo is rendering service everyday, and that she has several untranscribed stenographic notes for the past years which she has to transcribe, in addition to transcribing her stenographic notes of the daily court session; while the other one, Josephine Cainglet, has a pending administrative charge filed by him and has been detailed to the office of the Clerk of Court by the then Executive Judge Jose R. Ramolete, but has been absent without leave since March 21, 1980, and the other one, Vicente Ortiz, has filed on April 8, 1980 an application for retirement under R. A. No. 1146 due to defective hearing and presently is devoting his time in transcribing all pending untranscribed stenographic notes for the past years. 3

In attributing his failure to dispose Civil Case No. R-18342 within the prescribed period of 90 days under Section 5 of Judiciary Act of 1948, 4 Judge Aguinaldo explained that his deputy clerk of court, Mr. Antonio Paraguya, failed to keep him abreast of the status of all cases that have been submitted for decision in violation of his standing instruction to keep him posted from time to time; that he came to know Civil Case No. R-18342 has been long overdue only when he received on July 8, 1980 the 1st indorsement from the Deputy Court Administrator of the Supreme Court requiring him to file comment/explanation.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

In justifying the issuance of the temporary restraining order, he stated that he issued the temporary restraining order of August 13, 1979 as prayed for by the petitioner, and this is generally granted without notice to the party as its purpose is merely to compel the parties to maintain the matter in controversy in status quo until the application for the issuance of a preliminary injunction can be heard on notice and until further order; and that the contention that petitioner Montesclaros had not filed any approved supersedeas bond . . . is inaccurate and misleading since there is attached to the record of the case as alleged in the petition "the supersedeas bond of P4,250 and legal research fee of P5.00" end that whether or not such bond was approved is not in issue in the petition or certiorari. 5

Likewise, in his comment, respondent judge requested for an extension of thirty (30) days from July 18, 1980, the date of his comment, within which to render a decision since he has criminal cases of detained prisoners still pending determination, coupled by his hectic schedule aggravated by lack of key personnel in his sala.

While We find that herein respondent judge cannot be subjected to administrative sanction by this Court for his alleged refusal to lift the temporary restraining order issued by him on August 13, 1979 and to dismiss the petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and damages inasmuch as these matters fall within the legitimate exercise of respondent’s discretion as dispenser of justice, however, his explanation for not acting upon said motion and petition after a lapse of seven (7) months since Civil Case No. R-18342, was submitted for decision sometime on October, 1979 is not satisfactory to totally exonerate him from disciplinary action. Likewise, while it may be true that in the instant case, there was no showing that the delay of seven (7) months was motivated by malice, ill-motive or merely done to do injustice against a party-litigant, We cannot, however, tolerate such undue delay of the respondent judge without calling his attention to the express mandate of Section 11 (1) Article X of the Constitution and Section 5, R.A. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948. The law always abhors delay in the dispensation of justice. His failure to act within the 90-day period attributed to lack of key personnel and the omission of his deputy clerk of court to keep him posted with the status of all pending cases is no excuse. This Court, under the circumstances, cannot accept the proffered justification of such inaction of the respondent judge for seven (7) months which clearly defeats the intent and spirit of Section 11 (1) Article X of the Constitution and Section 5 Republic Act 296, and is, therefore an inexcusable infringement thereof.

As early as 1923, this Court, thru Justice Malcolm, called the attention of Judges of inferior courts to the popular criticism of law’s delay in our courts which lowers the standards of the courts and brings judges to disrepute. 6 According to Judge Malcolm, it can have no other result than the loss of evidence, the abandonment of cases, and the denial and frequent defeat of justice. 7 We cannot ignore nor countenance such undue delay of the respondent judge especially now when there are efforts to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the problem of congestion and delay long plaguing our courts. As a logical dictate of previous rulings of this Court relative to the proper imposition of administrative sanction, the justification invoked by the respondent may serve only to mitigate his administrative liability in view of the attendant circumstances in the herein case. 8

Again, We stress the need to remind judges to exhibit more diligence and efficiency in the performance of their judicial duties to avoid the loss of faith and confidence in the administration of justice. In accordance with the express mandate of Section 1 Rule 135 of the Revised Rules of Court that "justice shall be impartially administered without unnecessary delay," it is the explicitly duty of judges o judiciously apportion the court’s time to achieve speedy dispatch of cases consistent with justice. 9 Accordingly, judges must not only be fully cognizant of the state of their dockets, likewise, they just keep a watchful eye on the level of performance and conduct of the court personnel under their immediate supervision who are primarily employed to aid in the administration of justice. Judges who set the pace of greater efficiency, diligence and dedication, would prompt their personnel to be more diligent and efficient in the performance of their duties. Leniency of a judge in administrative supervision of his employees is an undesirable trait. 10

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Candido C. Aguinaldo is hereby found to have violated the provisions of Section 11 (1) Article X of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, is accordingly, punished with a fine equivalent to his fifteen (15) days salary, and enjoined to strictly comply with the said provisions with the warning that a repetition of the same violation will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be spread in his record.chanrobles law library

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. p. 1, Rollo.

2. See letter-complaint, p. 1, Rollo.

3. See comment, p. 6, Rollo.

4. See also Section 11 (1) Article X of the New Constitution.

5. p. 7, Rollo.

6. In re Impeachment of Flordeliza, 44 Phil. 608.

7. Ibid.

8. Bendesula v. Judge Laya, Adm. Matter No. 144-CFI, July 18, 1974, 58 SCRA 16 (1974); Yaranon v. Rubio, Adm. Matter No. 449-MJ, August 7, 1975, 66 SCRA 67 (1975); San Pedro v. Judge Salvador, Adm. Matter No. 749-CFI, September 5, 1975, 66 SCRA 534, (1975); Magdamo v. Judge Pahimulin, Adm. Matter No. 662-MJ, September 30, 1976, 73 SCRA 110; Guitante v. Judge Bantuas, January 28, 1980.

9. Rodriguez v. Hon. Barro, Adm. Matter No. 1587-CTJ, August 23, 1978, 84 SCRA 663 (1978).

10. Buenaventura v. Benedicto, Adm. Matter No. 137-J, March 27, 1971, 38 SCRA 71 (1971).




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