Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-54280 September 30, 1982 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

202 Phil. 850:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-54280. September 30, 1982.]

ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND OPEGINIO ABREU, SR., Respondents.

Emiliano L. Gayo for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondent NLRC.

Jovito Sab-it for Private Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner applied for clearance before the Office of the Labor Arbiter to terminate the employment of private respondent for highgrading’’ or theft of gold. The said office rendered judgment finding the charge without merit due to insufficiency of evidence and denied the application for clearance. It ordered respondent’s reinstatement with backwages. On appeal, the respondent commission set aside the arbiter’s decision, finding that there was a breach of trust committed by respondent Abreu, and ordered his separation front the service but granted him separation pay. Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition alleging that the commission’s decision was rendered with grase abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction, because respondent’s termination being for a just cause, petitioner is not obliged to pay him separation pay.

The Supreme Court, although finding that the breach of trust committed by respondent Abreu was sufficiently established thereby justifying his dismissal from the service, took into account his 23 years of unblemished service and ordered his reinstatement without loss of seniority rights to an equivalent position and without backwages, there being no showing that his continued employment would result in petitioner’s oppression or self- destruction.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENTS; MAY NOT BE IMPUGNED BY PARTY WHO DID NOT APPEAL THEREFROM. — The rule is well-settled that a party cannot impugn the correctness of a judgment not appealed from by him; and while he may make counter assignment of error, he can do so only to sustain the judgment on other grounds but not to seek modification or reversal thereof, for in such case, he must appeal. In the case at bar, therefore, the findings of fact of respondent Commission may be deemed as accepted by private respondent, considering that said party did not file any motion for reconsideration of the questioned decision, much less appeal therefrom.

2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; LABOR CODE; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; BREACH OF TRUST; GROUND FOR DISMISSAL. — Where respondent commission has sufficiently found that private respondent has committed a breach of trust the latter’s dismissal may be justified without any monetary obligation on the part of the employer (Section 7, Rule 1, Book VI, Implementing Rules and Regulations of the New Labor Code). An employer cannot be legally compelled to continue with the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of breach of trust towards his employer and whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to its interest. The law in protecting the rights of the laborers authorized neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR, AN EXCEPTION. — The Court, however, is of the considered view that private respondent’s dismissal is a drastic punishment considering his "twenty-three (23) years of service which undisputedly is unblemished by any previous derogatory record" as found by the respondent commission itself. And since he has been under preventive suspension during the pendency of this case, in the absence of a showing that his continued employment would result in petitioner’s oppression or self-destruction, the ends of social and compassionate justice would be served if private respondent is reinstated but without backwages.

ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEE NOT AN ISSUE WHERE EMPLOYEE DID NOT APPEAL FROM THE ASSAILED DECISION AND THE ONLY QUESTION RAISED BY EMPLOYER IS WHETHER TO GIVE SEPARATION PAY OR NOT; CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar where the employer filed petition for certiorari assailing a decision of the National Labo Relations Commission which ordered the dismissal of an employee or cause but at the same time granting him separation pay, the issue. is whether petitioner employer should give separation pay or not to the employee. The matter of private respondent’s reinstatement is not in question because private respondent did not appeal from the decision.

2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; BREACH OF TRUST; GROUND FOR DISMISSAL; RESPONDENT NOT ENTITLED TO SEPARATION PAY; CASE AT BAR. — The failure of private respondent to appeal the NLRC decision is deemed as an admission that he was indeed guilty of breach of trust and considered himself fortunate, notwithstanding such breach, to have been awarded separation pay. Considering, however, that the termination of his employment was for a just cause, he is not entitled to separation pay.


D E C I S I O N


DE CASTRO, J.:


Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc., in this petition for certiorari with restraining order/injunction, seeks to set aside the decision 1 of respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated May 23, 1980, which ordered petitioner, on "grounds of equity", to pay private respondent "separation pay equivalent to fifteen (15) days pay for every year of service", despite its finding that the latter’s breach of trust was sufficiently established and "the maximum penalty of severance of employment status suffices for the offense committed by him," thereby setting aside the decision 2 of the Labor Arbiter dated April 2, 1979, which denied petitioner’s application for clearance to terminate the services of said private respondent and "ordered that Abreu be reinstated immediately to his former position with back wages from the time of his suspension up to his actual reinstatement and without loss of seniority rights."cralaw virtua1aw library

Record shows that on December 22, 1978, herein petitioner filed with the Ministry of Labor, Baguio District Labor Office Baguio City, an application for clearance to terminate private respondent from employment on the ground of "highgrading" (stealing high grade stones), and at the same time, placed him under preventive suspension pending approval of said application. Private respondent filed his opposition to said clearance application, so the case was certified to the Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Branch No. 1, Baguio City, for compulsory arbitration and/or hearing.

On April 2, 1979, the Labor Arbiter assigned on the case rendered judgment finding the charge of highgrading to be without merit for "it is not sufficiently supported by evidence." Petitioner’s application for clearance was therefore denied and the immediate reinstatement with back wages and without loss of seniority rights of private respondent was ordered.

On Appeal at the instance of herein petitioner, the above decision of the Labor Arbiter was, however, set aside by the respondent National Labor Relations Commission, which found private respondent’s breach of trust to be sufficiently established by the evidence on record, considering that he was apprehended in flagrante delicto during the meal break at 16 Vein which is not his place of work nor was he authorized to be there. Consequently, the respondent Commission decreed the severance of employment status of private Respondent. In the said decision, however, petitioner was ordered to grant private respondent separation pay as indicated earlier.

Not satisfied with the judgment of the respondent Commission, petitioner filed the present petition on the ground that said decision is contrary to law and was issued by the respondent Commission with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. It is pointed out that when termination of employment is for a just cause, the employer is not obliged to pay to the terminated employee any separation pay since that would be inconsistent with dismissal for just cause, even on the ground of equity, considering that where the law clearly applies, equity does not apply. Petitioner consequently prays for the approval of its application for clearance to terminate private respondent’s employment for just cause.

The Solicitor General, while conforming with petitioner’s contention that when termination of employment is for a just cause, the terminated employee is not entitled to separation pay, disagrees with the conclusion reached by the respondent Commission that breach of trust by private respondent was sufficiently established, asserting that the Labor Arbiter was correct in denying petitioner’s clearance application for insufficiency of evidence. The dismissal of the petition is therefore recommended, with the observation that it is rather unfortunate for the private respondent not to have contested the decision of respondent Commission, the effect of which recommendation, if granted, is to sustain the grant of separation pay which is allegedly much less than what the Labor Arbiter had granted.

Upon the other hand, private respondent, both in his comment to the petition and in this memorandum, urged that the decision of the Labor Arbiter which he claims is supported by sufficient evidence on record, be affirmed, or, in the alternative, to sustain the grant of separation pay because of the insufficiency of evidence as found out and decided by respondent Commission.

It should be stressed at this juncture, that the findings of facts of respondent Commission may be deemed as accepted by private respondent, considering that said party did not file any motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned decision, much less appeal therefrom. The net result is that private respondent cannot now impugn the correctness of the findings of facts contained in the decision subject of this petition. The rule is well-settled that a party cannot impugn the correctness of a judgment not appealed from by him; and while he may make counter assignment of errors, he can do so only to sustain the judgment on other grounds but not to seek modification or reversal thereof, 3 for in such case, he must appeal. 4

Considering the circumstances above pointed out, We are constrained to give full accord and deference to the findings of respondent Commission that breach of trust by private respondent was sufficiently established, by reason of which, his dismissal may he justified without any monetary obligation on the part of the employer.cralawnad

Sec. 7. Termination of employment by employer. — The just causes for terminating the services of an employee shall be those provided in Article 283 of the Code. The separation from work of an employee for a just cause does not entitle him to the termination pay provided in the Code, without prejudice, however, to whatever rights, benefits and privileges he may have under the applicable individual or collective bargaining agreement with the employer or voluntary employer policy or practice. (Italics supplied) Rule I, Book VI, Implementing Rules and Regulations of the new Labor Code.

As repeatedly been held by this Court, an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of breach of trust towards his employer and whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to its interest. The law in protecting the rights of the laborers, authorized neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. 5

However, taking into account private respondent’s "twenty-three (23) years of service which undisputedly is unblemished by any previous derogatory record" as found by the respondent Commission itself, and since he has been under preventive suspension during the pendency of this case, in the absence of a showing that the continued employment of private respondent would result in petitioner’s oppression or self-destruction, 6 We are of the considered view that his dismissal is a drastic punishment. As succinctly stated in the ponencia of the Chief Justice: 7

". . . It would imply at the very least that where s penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought no to be visited with a consequence so severe. It is not only because of the law’s concern for the workingman. There is, in addition, his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner. The misery and pain attendant on the loss of jobs then could be avoided if there be acceptance of the view that under all the circumstances of this case, petitioners should not be deprived of their means of livelihood. Nor is this to condone what had been done by them. For all this while, since private respondent considered them separated from the service, they had not been paid. For the strictly juridical standpoint, it cannot be too strongly stressed . . . that where a decision may be made to rest on informed judgment rather than rigid rules, all the equities of the case must be accorded their due weight. Finally, labor law determinations . . . should be not only secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem."cralaw virtua1aw library

The ends of Social and compassionate justice would therefore be served if private respondent is reinstated but without backwages in view of petitioner’s obvious good faith. 8

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered denying the application for clearance to terminate the services of respondent Opeginio Abreu, Sr. filed by petitioner Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc., which is hereby directed to immediately reinstate said respondent to his former position, if possible, otherwise, to a substantially equivalent position without loss of seniority rights but without backwages. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued is hereby made permanent. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


BARREDO, Chairman, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur. I agree with the Solicitor General that there is insufficient evidence to support the charge of highgrading against private respondent, which I feel is involved in this case even if seemingly there is no appeal posted.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The issue in this case is simple: should the petitioner give separation pay to the private respondent as ordered by the NLRC despite its finding that the private respondent committed a breach of trust? The matter of private respondent’s reinstatement is not in question because he did not appeal the decision of the NLRC.

Since to pay or not to pay the only question, I cannot go along with the decision which unjustifiably orders the reinstatement of the private Respondent.

The failure of the private respondent to appeal the NLRC decision has another implication It can be deemed as an admission that he was indeed guilty of breach of trust and considered himself fortunate, notwithstanding such breach, to have been awarded separation pay.

"Highgrading" has caused great economic losses to the mining industry. It consists in stealing ores with a high gold content; the gold flecks are visible even to the naked eye. "Highgrading" has attained such serious proportions that on November 3, 1974, P.D. No. 581 had to be issued. The decree is entitled, PRESCRIBING A HEAVIER MINIMUM PENALTY FOR HIGHGRADING OR THEFT OF GOLD FROM A MINING CLAIM OR MINING CAMP and has the following preambular paragraphs:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREAS, ‘highgrading’ or the theft of gold has become rampant in the mining areas where gold is produced because of the high price that tins precious metal now commands in the free market;

WHEREAS, gold mining is one of the industries that the Government encourages because of the role that gold plays in our economy not only as an important part of our international reserves, but also as one of our principal sources of foreign exchange;

WHEREAS, the existing laws have proved inadequate in curbing highgrading because of the difficulty in apprehending highgraders and also because of the light penalties usually imposed on the accused due to the relatively low value which the Courts give to stolen gold-bearing ores or rocks;chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREAS, ‘highgrading’ causes damage not only to the operator of the mining claims, but also to the Government which loses the foreign exchange and the taxes the stolen gold could have generated and, worse, it promotes black-marketing and smuggling abroad of this precious metal; and

WHEREAS, one of the principal aims of our New Society is to stamp out all forms of lawlessness to promote the social and economic well-being of our people."cralaw virtua1aw library

Considering that the termination of the private respondent’s employment was for a just cause, he is not entitled to separation pay. I vote to grant the petition.

Aquino, J., concurs.

Endnotes:



1. Annex "A" Petition, pp. 10-14, Rollo.

2. Annex "1" Comment of Respondent Abreu, pp. 29-31, Id.

3. Lianga Lumber Co. v. Lianga Timber Co., Incs., 76 SCRA 197; David v. de la Cruz, 103 Phil. 380; Aparri v. Court of Appeals, 13 SCRA 611.

4. Bunge Corporation and Universal Commercial Agencies v. Elena Camenforte & Co., 91 Phil. 861; Gorospe v. Peñaflorida, 101 Phil. 886.

5. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. National Labor Union, 97 Phil. 378; El Hogar Filipino Mutual Bldg & Loan Assn., v. Building Employees Inc., 107 Phil. 473.

6. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. v. Philippine Air Lines Employees Association (PALEA), 57 SCRA 489.

7. Meracap v. International Ceramics Mfg. Co., Inc., 92 SCRA 412, 417.

8. San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, 64 SCRA 56.




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