Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > 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:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. L-56950-51. September 30, 1982.]

M. F. VIOLAGO OILER TANK TRUCKS, Petitioner, v. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FELIPE CRUZ, AMADO MARIANO, RICARDO PASCO, TEOFILO DE LEON and ZOSIMO SACDALAN, Respondents.

Abraham P. Gorospe for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondent NLRC.

Fortunato M. Borlongan for Private Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Respondents, who used to work as drivers for petitioner oil-tank trucking company, filed complaints with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal, reinstatement with backwages, and other benefits. Respondents alleged that petitioner withdrew the trucks driven by them for no just cause and without prior clearance from the Ministry of labor. Petitioner on the other hand claimed that except for respondent Cruz, who had abandoned his job after actively campaigning in a local election against the brother of petitioner company’s proprietor, respondents were not dismissed and could drive the trucks upon presentation of clearances from Petrophil an oil company with whom petitioner had a hauling contract which had banned respondents from its premises upon being caught pilfering oil products. For failure of petitioner to produce results of a formal investigation by Petrophil finding the four drivers guilty of diverting oil products, the Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner to pay respondents backwages, separation pay and service incentive leave. The NLRC affirmed the order but instead of awarding separation pay, it ordered reinstatement with full backwages until reinstated. Hence, this petition.

The Supreme Court found that as against private respondents’ assertion that they have been dismissed without cause petitioner’s stand that the respondents, except Felipe Cruz, may drive its tanker trucks at any time they have clearances from Petrophil shows that petitioner’s evidence was not only adequate but was credible. It held that it was asking too much to have petitioner produce the results of a formal investigation by Petrophil finding respondents guilty of pilferage since Petrophil is not interested in expending time, money and effort in conducting a full-fledged investigation of respondents who are not its employees; and that consequently, respondents cannot make petitioner accountable for a predicament where it had no participation and to answer for circumstances over which it had no control. The Court sustained the finding that there was no abandonment as regards respondent Cruz.

Judgment modified. Respondent Cruz was ordered reinstated with full backwages; the four other private respondents were ordered reinstated without backwages upon presentation of clearances from Petrophil, Inc.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; LABOR LAWS; EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; FORMAL INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED PILFERAGE IN CASE AT BAR NOT WITHIN CONTROL OF EMPLOYER. — It was asking too much to have Violago produce the results of a formal investigation by Petrophil that the private respondents were found guilty of cheating in receiving oil products from Petrophil depots and delivering the same to various delivery points. Petrophil had no interest in expending time, money. and effort in conducting a full-fledged investigation. It was wary of certifications that resulted in suits against its officials. The complainants are not its employees. Assuming that Violago and its four drivers could have demanded a formal investigation under the arrangements with Petrophil and, if refused, gone to court, Violago must have felt that it would be risking its entire hauling contract with Petrophil if it went to that extent. Pressed for the kind of evidence required by the respondent commission from Violago, Petrophil may have cancelled the entired contract because of the formally proved dishonesty of a few.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF EMPLOYER’S DEFENSE FOR TERMINATING EMPLOYMENT. — The petitioner has never deviated from its stand that the private respondents except Felipe Cruz may drive its tanker trucks at anytime they have clearances from Petrophil. The fact that the four drivers went against their employer who had no command or control over Petrophil when it would have been a simpler matter to show that they were free to haul Petrophil products and that Violago dismissed them for fancied or non-existent reasons shows that the evidence presented by the petitioner was not only adequate but also credible.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID; LABOR ARBITRATION; OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING AFTER JOINING OF ISSUES, NECESSARY. — The contention that Violago waived its right to a hearing because of the above absences has no merit. No witness from Petrophil could be presented during those hearings in July, 1980 because the answer was filed only on August 11, 1980. And since the main basis of the labor arbiter’s decision was the supposed inadequacy of evidence. an opportunity for a hearing after the joining of issues with the filing of an answer was necessary.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NO BASIS FOR AWARDING SEPARATION PAY IN CASE AT BAR. — The petitioner has never deviated from its stand that the private respondents except Felipe Cruz may drive its tanker trucks at anytime they have clearances from Petrophil. There is no basis for the labor arbiter’s conclusion that while the respondents are entitled to be reinstated, they should instead be given a total of Pl53,220.00 in separation pay, backwages and other benefits because reinstatement would foment industrial unrest.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


On July 29, 1980, five drivers who used to work for the petitioner filed complaints with the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Commission at San Fernando, Pampanga for illegal dismissal, reinstatement with backwages, and such other benefits as they may be entitled to under the law.

According to the complainants, Mr. Miguel F. Violago, proprietor of an oil-tank trucking business, withdrew the trucks driven by them for no just cause and without prior clearance from the Ministry of Labor. They charged that their employer did not give them any separation pay and that during their employment, they were not given sick leave pay, vacation leave pay, and overtime or holiday pay for work on Sundays and holidays. The drivers also alleged that illegal deductions for payments of back premiums to the Social Security System were levied against them and that their employer unilaterally reduced their wages in 1979 without their consent and with no Ministry of Labor’s authority. Complainants Felipe Cruz and Zosimo Sacdalan added that their deposits or cash bonds were not refunded when the employer illegally dismissed them.chanrobles law library : red

In its answer, M. F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks alleged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That all the charges filed by the complainant against herein respondent are maliciously false and perjurious, the truth of the matter being that said complainants Teofilo de Leon, Ricardo Pasco, Amado Mariano were allegedly suspected/caught by the Petrophil authorities of using device to cheat in receiving and delivering fuel from the compound to the points of delivery and by reason thereof, they were prohibited or banned from entering the Petrophil compound at Pandacan, Metro Manila, thus, as they were not allowed anymore to enter the compound, they abandoned the trucks they were respectively operating.

"That complainant Felipe Cruz was not illegally dismissed as falsely asserted in his complaint, the truth of the matter being as gathered by herein respondent, said complainant being a barrio official and active leader of a mayoral candidate in his municipality, left his work and actively campaigned for the said candidate and after the elections, as, he thought that the other candidate is related to the respondent, he did not report anymore to his work and instead, he filed this complaint.

"That the unlawful and illegal abandonment made by the complainants caused great and irreparable damage and prejudice to the Respondent.

That the acts of complainants as stated above, being illegal, respondent most respectfully prays for the dismissal of the complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Assistant Director for Arbitration of the regional office rendered a decision on October 8, 1980 the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Ordering respondent M.F. Violago oiler-Tank Trucks to pay backwages of complainants Felipe Cruz, Ricardo Pasco, Amado Mariano, Teofilo de Leon and Zosimo Sacdalan from the date of their respective dates of dismissal up to the date of this decision, broken down as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"NAMES BACKWAGES

"1. Felipe Cruz P 11,475.00

"2. Ricardo Pasco 17,550.00

"3. Amado Mariano 28,290.00

"4. Teofilo de Leon 27,060.00

"5. Zosimo Sacdalan 16,500.00

—————

Total P100,875.00

=========

"2. Ordering respondent, in lieu of reinstatement, to pay the separation pay of complainants herein at one (1) month for every year of service broken down as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"NAMES SEPARATION PAY

"1. Felipe Cruz P 12,150.00

"2. Ricardo Pasco 10,800.00

"3. Amado Mariano 9,840.00

"4. Teofilo de Leon 9,840.00

"5. Zosimo Sacdalan 6,000.00

—————

Total P 48,630.00

=========

"3. Ordering respondent to pay complainant Felipe Cruz the monthly allowance of P60.00 under PD 1634 from 1 September 1979 to 20 January 1980 or the total amount of P280.00;

"4. Ordering respondent to pay the emergency allowance of complainant Zosimo Sacdalan from 1 September 1979 to 6 November 1979 or the total amount of P180.00;

"5. Ordering respondent to pay the herein complainants the monetary equivalent of their service incentive leave under Article 95 of the New Labor Code from 1975 up to the date of this decision, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

NAMES SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE

1. Felipe Cruz P 660.00

2. Ricardo Pasco 660.00

3. Amado Mariano 600.00

4. Teofilo de Leon 600.00

5. Zosimo Sacdalan 735.00

—————

Total P 3,255.00

=========

"All other claims of complainants are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit."cralaw virtua1aw library

The respondent Commission rendered a decision on April 30, 1980 affirming the arbiter’s decision but deleting the awards of emergency living allowances to Felipe Cruz and Zosimo Sacdalan and the award of service incentive leave pay to all complainants. Instead of the award of separation pay, the petitioner was ordered to reinstate the complainants with full backwages until actually reinstated.

A careful consideration of the records before Us shows that insofar as respondents Amado Mariano, Ricardo Pasco, Teofilo de Leon, and Zosimo Sacdalan are concerned, the petitioner has been made accountable for a predicament where it had no participation and to answer for circumstances over which it had no control. Justice, fairness, and due process dictate that the questioned decision be modified.

We note that the respondent commission adopted the labor arbiter’s findings verbatim and merely added three short paragraphs in its decision which modified the awards with one sentence justifications for each change.

We agree with the petitioner that the conclusions of the arbiter are "patently erroneous and devoid of logical and justifiable consideration." The arbiter called the petitioner’s defense that it never dismissed the complainants from employment a mere "theory", inspite of the fact that this defense constituted the crucial issue of the case before him.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

According to the arbiter and the commission:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


". . . As we see it, the fact that complainants herein were not allowed to drive by respondent and more than this alternate drivers were hired by it to take the place of complainants herein, is more than enough justification for us to rule and declare that there is a ‘constructive dismissal’ in this case. The mere fact that the trucks they were originally driving were taken from them and given to other drivers is mute but clear evidence that they were virtually dismissed from their employment."cralaw virtua1aw library

The questioned decision states that the "constructive dismissal" may "perhaps" be justified if the explanations of Violago were true.

We find no reason to find the allegations of the petitioner false or mere concoctions. In addition to the affidavits of the three witness for the employer and the sworn statements of the Violago manager, the respondent commission wanted documentary evidences from Petrophil certifying that it has banned the complainants from Petrophil premises, that a formal investigation of the supposed pilferage should have been conducted, and that the complainants should have been found guilty. The commission also ruled that Violago should have applied for a clearance to terminate the complainants’ employment from the Ministry of Labor and Employment.

These findings ignore the realities of the factual situation. The petitioner has always insisted up to the present that it has nothing against its drivers, it wants them to continue working, it does not suspect them of any wrong doing and it is ready to resume their services as long as they can do the work for which they are employed. All that the four complainants had to do was to show that they could enter Petrophil, pick up the gasoline or other oil products contracted by Violago for hauling, and deliver the same to the various dealers or gasoline stations of Petrophil.

It was asking too much to have Violago produce the results of a formal investigation by Petrophil that the private respondents were found guilty of cheating in receiving oil products from Petrophil depots and delivering the same to various delivery points. Petrophil had no interest in expending time, money, and effort in conducting a full-fledged investigation. It was wary of certifications that resulted in suits against its officials. The complainants are not its employees. Assuming that Violago and its four drivers could have demanded a formal investigation under the arrangements with Petrophil and, if refused, gone to court, Violago must have felt that it would be risking its entire hauling contract with Petrophil if it went to that extent. Pressed for the kind of evidence required by the respondent commission from Violago, Petrophil may have cancelled the entire contract because of the formally proved dishonesty of a few. Not only four drivers ‘cut all employees and the entire fleet would have been idled. As a matter of fact, an affidavit of three constables of the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group (CHPG) and a report of investigation shows that respondent Zosimo Sacdalan was apprehended on November 6, 1979 for violation of BP Blg. 33, that Sacdalan admitted having diverted a portion of 9,000 liters of gasoline on one occasion and 2,000 liters out of 8,000 liters on another occasion and that the persons who supposedly received the diverted gasoline turned out to be fictitious. The statement of Sacdalan during the investigation in Camp Crame was attached to the appeal. Instead of remanding the case for the conduct of hearings or at least looking further into the factual situation, the respondent commission chose to merely copy verbatim the arbiter’s findings of facts.

The fact that the four drivers went against their employer who had no command or control over Petrophil when it would have been a simpler matter to show that they were free to haul Petrophil products and that Violago dismissed them for fancied or non-existent reasons shows that the evidence presented by the petitioner was not only adequate but also credible.

The petitioner stresses a due process consideration. It points out that it had no opportunity to present a witness from Petrophil to clarify that the drivers, except Felipe Cruz, were banned from entering the Petrophil compound. It argues that the labor arbiter decided the case, without giving the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence.

The respondents deny that the petitioner was not accorded administrative due process. They state that petitioner’s counsel filed an ex parte urgent motion for postponement of the July 15, 1980 hearing and failed to show up during the July 29, 1980 hearing. There were subsequent hearings, according to the respondents, which the petitioner failed to attend. Instead, the petitioner filed its answer to the complaint and its position paper with affidavits and a sworn statement on August 11, 1980 and August 29, 1980 respectively. These formed the basis of the arbiter’s decision.cralawnad

The contention that Violago waived its right to a hearing because of the above absences has no merit. No witness from Petrophil could be presented during those hearings in July, 1980 because the answer was filed only on August 11, 1980. And since the main basis of the labor arbiter’s decision was the supposed inadequacy of evidence, an opportunity for a hearing after the joining of issues with the filing of an answer was necessary. More so, when the anomalies in gasoline distribution were so serious that a law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 33 dated June 6, 1979 had to be enacted to meet the situation.

There is another factor ignored by the arbiter and the commission. The private respondents stopped driving the tanker trucks on the following dates:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Amado Mariano — November 8, 1978

2. Teofilo de Leon — November 26, 1978

3. Ricardo Pasco — September 1, 1979

4. Zosimo Sacdalan — November 6, 1970

5. Felipe Cruz — January 20, 1980"

The complaint was filed on July 29, 1980.

The fact that it took the first four drivers such a long time to complain about their alleged dismissals dovetails with the petitioner’s arguments that there was no controversy between it and the private respondents and that they could drive the tankers anytime that Petrophil allowed them to enter the oil depots.

The case of Mr. Felipe Cruz is a different matter. The petitioner claimed that Cruz abandoned his job after the January, 1980 elections because he actively campaigned against the brother of Miguel F. Violago and chose not to work afterwards. On the other hand, Cruz maintained that he was dismissed because he refused to heed the request of Mr. Violago to campaign for NUL candidates. Cruz was a barangay captain and a KBL party member.

We sustain the respondent commission’s ruling on this point:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘The contention of complainant Cruz appears to be logical and meritorious. We do not think that complainant Cruz with a monthly income of around P1,350.00 will just abandon his work without any positive proof that he has landed in another job with a larger salary. Being the sole bread-winner in the family, we doubt very much if complainant Cruz will ever abandon his work because by so doing he will surely expose his family to hunger and untold hardships. No man in his right mind will do such thing. And more importantly if it is true that complainant abandoned his work then why did not respondent company file a Report of such abandonment with the Ministry of Labor and Employment. The reason for this is obvious, because there is no such abandonment. Abandonment being absent, the dismissal of complainant to reinstatement to his former position with full backwages.’"

The petitioner has never deviated from its stand that the private respondents except Felipe Cruz may drive its tanker trucks at anytime they have clearances from Petrophil. There is no basis for the labor arbiter’s conclusion that while the respondents are entitled to be reinstated, they should instead be given a total of P153,220.00 in separation pay, backwages, and other benefits because reinstatement would foment industrial unrest.

WHEREFORE, the decision dated April 30, 1981 of the respondent commission is hereby modified. The petitioner is directed to reinstate Amado Mariano, Ricardo Pasco, Teofilo de Leon, and Zosimo Sacdalan, without any payment of backwages, upon their presenting clearances from Petrophil, Inc. that they are allowed to haul Petrophil products and to reinstate Felipe Cruz with full backwages until actually reinstated.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez and Relova, JJ., concur.




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