Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > January 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-46877 January 22, 1988 - LOURDES CYNTHIA MAKABALI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-46877. January 22, 1988.]

LOURDES CYNTHIA MAKABALI and GEORGINA MAKABALI, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and BARON TRAVEL CORPORATION, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; MORAL DAMAGES; NO HARD AND FAST RULE IN THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT WOULD BE A FAIR AWARD. — There is no hard and fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances. Article 2217 of the Civil Code recognizes that moral damages which include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury, are incapable of pecuniary estimation. A review of related jurisprudence shows that We had awarded moral damages in more or less similar cases ranging from P20,000.00 [Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca], P25,000.00 [Yutuk v. Manila Electric Company, Air France v. Carrascoso], P50,000.00 [KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Court of Appeals], P150,000.00 [Ortigas v. Lufthansa German Airlines], and P200,000.00 [Lopez v. Pan American World Airways], to P500,000.00 [Zulueta v. Pan American World Airways].

2. ID.; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; ENTITLEMENT TO MORAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES REQUIRED: BEFORE AWARD OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES CONSIDERED. — As to exemplary damages, Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that such damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. While exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right, they need not be proved, although plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded.

3. ID.; MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; NATURE THEREOF. — We have awarded moral and exemplary damages depending upon the facts attendant to each case. It will also be noted that We gave separate awards for moral and exemplary damages. This is as it should be because the nature and purposes of said damages are different. While moral damages have to do with injury personal to the awardee, such as physical suffering and the like, exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good.

4. ID.; DAMAGES; AWARD DEPENDENT ON THE SATISFACTORY PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGES. — It is essential however, in the award of damages that the claimant must have satisfactorily proven during the trial the existence of the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection to defendant’s acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer, and are allowable only when specifically prayed for in the complaint.

5. ID.; MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; BASIS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AWARD. — As reflected in the records of the case, the Court of Appeals was in agreement with the findings of the trial court that petitioners suffered anguish, embarrassment and mental sufferings due to failure of private respondent to perform its obligation to the petitioners. According to the Court of Appeals, private respondent acted in wanton disregard of the rights of petitioners. These pronouncements lay the basis and justification for this Court to award petitioners moral and exemplary damages. In the light of the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, especially the social standing of petitioners and the embarrassment and humiliation suffered by them, the anxiety they must have felt in their first journey to a foreign land under uncertain circumstances and with meager funds which could run out any time, We are inclined to award damages to the petitioner more than what was awarded by the Court of Appeals.

6. ID.; ID.; AWARD LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT CLAIMED IN THE PLEADING. — It must be emphasized that moral damages are not intended to enrich the complainant at the expense of a defendant. They are awarded only to enable the injured parties to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral sufferings the injured parties have undergone by reason of defendant’s culpable action. In other words, the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The amount of P5,000.00 is minimal compared to the sufferings and embarrassment of petitioners who left Manila with high spirits and excitement hoping to enjoy their first trip to a foreign land only to be met with uncertainties and humiliations. We note however that petitioners limited their claim for moral and exemplary damages in their complaint filed with the Court of First Instance to a total of P35,000.00 plus attorney’s fees and costs. We feel that Our award should not exceed the said amount.


D E C I S I O N


FERNAN, J.:


The sole issue in this petition for review is whether or not petitioners are entitled to more than the P5,000.00 moral and exemplary damages, P1,000.00 attorney’s fees and costs awarded to them by the Court of Appeals in the light of the circumstances of the case.

Petitioner Georgina Makabali had just graduated from the College of Medicine, University of the Philippines, and as a graduation gift from her father, was given a trip to Hongkong. Since she had never been abroad, her parents insisted that she be accompanied by her sister and co-petitioner Lourdes Cynthia Makabali, a schoolteacher at the Colegio de San Agustin, Dasmarinas Village.

An advertisement of private respondent Baron Travel Corporation in the March 30, 1969 issue of the newspaper "The Sunday Times" offering a package tour to Hongkong caught the attention of petitioner Georgina Makabali. In response to her inquiry, private respondent sent her the literature pertaining to its Hongkong package tour together with the time schedule, description of the tour, tour conditions and brochure.

At private respondent’s office, petitioners were assured that they would be going with a group of thirteen [13] other travellers to be led by a tour guide, a certain Mr. Arsenio Rosal, and that a representative of private respondent would see them off at the Manila International Airport to give them final instructions. Petitioners were also assured that they would be lodged at the President Hotel in Hongkong. These promises and representations convinced the petitioners to purchase the Hongkong package tour offered by private Respondent.

On the departure date, May 10, 1969, petitioners searched for the tour group they were supposed to meet at the Manila International Airport. They likewise searched for private respondent’s representative who would give them final instructions on their trip to Hongkong. They met neither private respondent’s tour group nor its representative.

When they were paged through the public address system to board their plane for Hongkong, they had no choice but to do so without receiving any instructions from private respondent’s representative.

Inside the plane, petitioners did not meet anyone from the Baron Tour Group. They looked for and found a certain Mr. Arsenio Rosal who, to their embarrassment, protested that he was not a tour guide but a business executive working with International Harvester Macleod, Inc. and who was going to Hongkong as a paying passenger. In fact, he knew no one from private respondent Baron Travel Corporation and had nothing to do with it.

In Hongkong, nobody met petitioners at the airport. Mr. Rosal who was a member of the Abaya Tour Group, requested their tour leader to accommodate petitioners provided they pay all their expenses in Hongkong.

Thereafter, petitioners called up the President Hotel in Hongkong where private respondent promised to book them but it had no accommodations for them. Petitioners lost no time in sending a cable to private respondent informing it that they had no hotel accommodations.

Left with no alternative, petitioners tagged along with the Abaya Tour Group. Petitioners claimed public humiliation due to the fact that they had to pay for their lunch while the rest of the group had prepaid meals. They could not go shopping with the Abaya group for fear that their limited funds would not be sufficient to pay for their hotel bills. There were times when breakfast consisted of hot dogs bought along the sidewalk while lunch and supper consisted of apples and oranges.

On the third night, they tried to place a long-distance call to their home but could not get through. The next morning, petitioners sent a cable to their parents.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

According to petitioners, they had to scrimp on their limited budget for fear that their meager pocket money would not be enough to pay for their hotel bills. All these caused them sleepless nights because of great worry, mental anguish and public humiliation.

It was only at 9:00 in the morning of May 13, 1969 or on the fourth day of the supposed five-day tour that petitioners were notified that private respondent had finally made arrangements for the payment of their bills. By that time, the supposed tour was practically over.

Upon their return, petitioners complained to private respondent who according to petitioners did not even bother to apologize but simply ignored their complaint and gave them the run around.

An action for moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs was filed by the petitioners in the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVI and docketed as Civil Case No. 76912. Petitioners in their complaint prayed for an award of P100 as actual and compensatory damages, P30,000.00 as moral damages, P5,000.00 as exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees and costs. The Court rendered judgment in petitioner’s favor but awarded them only P500.00 as moral and exemplary damages, P100.00 as attorney’s fees and costs, stating the following as its justification for the award:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Plaintiffs claim P35,000 for damages aside from attorney’s fees. These are too much and too high. Travel agents are only paid 10% commissions for the trips they sell. Besides, Baron rectified on time its oversight and made it possible for the plaintiffs to enjoy the rest of their

trip." 1

Unsatisfied, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. Private respondent likewise appealed. The Court of Appeals made the following findings and ruling:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is a fact that the plaintiffs had to shift for themselves upon arriving in Hongkong and that defendant arranged for the hotel bills of plaintiffs only after said plaintiffs had cabled it for confirmation. There is no doubt that the plaintiffs suffered humiliation and anxiety during the first days of their stay in Hongkong. The defendant was remiss in the performance of its obligation to the plaintiffs. It acted in wanton disregard of the rights of the plaintiffs.

"The trial Court correctly stated that the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiffs are too high. However, the amounts awarded as damages and attorney’s fees by the trial court are inadequate. Under the established facts and equity of the case, the plaintiffs are entitled to the sum of P5,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages and the amount of P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

"WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby modified in that the defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages and the sum of P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the costs.

"SO ORDERED." 2

Still unsatisfied, petitioners elevated this case to Us on a petition for review on a lone assignment of error, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING PETITIONERS THE PITIFUL SUMS OF P5,000.00 AS MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND P1,000.00 AS ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE LIGHT OF THE SOCIAL STANDING OF PETITIONER GEORGINA MAKABALI, WHO IS A DOCTOR OF MEDICINE, AND OF PETITIONER LOURDES CYNTHIA MAKABALI, WHO IS A TEACHER; IN THE LIGHT OF THE SLEEPLESS NIGHTS AND PUBLIC HUMILIATION THEY SUFFERED FOR THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS; IN THE LIGHT OF THE CALLOUS FAILURE OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO HAVE ANYONE ATTEND TO PETITIONERS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT RAKES IN MORE THAN HALF A MILLION PESOS A MONTH FROM AIR FREIGHT ALONE. 3

To begin with, there is no hard and fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances. 4

Article 2217 of the Civil Code recognizes that moral damages which include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury, are incapable of pecuniary estimation.chanrobles law library

As to exemplary damages, Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that such damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. While exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right, 5 they need not be proved, although plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. 6

A review of related jurisprudence shows that We had awarded moral damages in more or less similar cases ranging from P20,000.00 [Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca], 7 P25,000.00 [Yutuk v. Manila Electric Company, Air France v. Carrascoso], 8 P50,000.00 [KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Court of Appeals], 9 P150,000.00 [Ortigas v. Lufthansa German Airlines], 10 and P200,000.00 [Lopez v. Pan American World Airways], 11 to P500,000.00 [Zulueta v. Pan American World Airways], 12 . As to exemplary damages, We awarded in Yutuk and Air France P10,000.00, in Lopez P75,000.00, in Ortigas P100,000.00 and in Zulueta P200,000.00.

It will thus be noted that We have awarded moral and exemplary damages depending upon the facts attendant to each case. It will also be noted that We gave separate awards for moral and exemplary damages. This is as it should be because the nature and purposes of said damages are different. While moral damages have to do with injury personal to the awardee, such as physical suffering and the like, exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good.

It is essential however, in the award of damages that the claimant must have satisfactorily proven during the trial the existence of the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection to defendant’s acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer, 13 and are allowable only when specifically prayed for in the complaint. 14

As reflected in the records of the case, the Court of Appeals was in agreement with the findings of the trial court that petitioners suffered anguish, embarrassment and mental sufferings due to failure of private respondent to perform its obligation to the petitioners. According to the Court of Appeals, private respondent acted in wanton disregard of the rights of petitioners. These pronouncements lay the basis and justification for this Court to award petitioners moral and exemplary damages.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In the light of the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, especially the social standing of petitioners and the embarrassment and humiliation suffered by them, the anxiety they must have felt in their first journey to a foreign land under uncertain circumstances and with meager funds which could run out any time, We are inclined to award damages to the petitioner more than what was awarded by the Court of Appeals.

It must be emphasized that moral damages are not intended to enrich the complainant at the expense of a defendant. They are awarded only to enable the injured parties to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral sufferings the injured parties have undergone by reason of defendant’s culpable action. In other words, the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. 15 The amount of P5,000.00 is minimal compared to the sufferings and embarrassment of petitioners who left Manila with high spirits and excitement hoping to enjoy their first trip to a foreign land only to be met with uncertainties and humiliations.cralawnad

We note however that petitioners limited their claim for moral and exemplary damages in their complaint filed with the Court of First Instance to a total of P35,000.00 plus attorney’s fees and costs. We feel that Our award should not exceed the said amount.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals subject of the petition for review is hereby modified, increasing the award to petitioners of moral and exemplary damages to P35,000.00 and attorney’s fees to P5,000.00 with costs. This decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 25, Annex "A" of Petition, p. 22.

2. Rollo, pp. 34-35, Annex "C", pp. 7 & 8.

3. Petition, Rollo, p. 16.

4. Sanchez & Sanchez v. Cebu Auto Bus Company, 52 OG 6250.

5. Article 2233, Civil Code.

6. Article 2234, Id.

7. 14 SCRA 1063 [1965].

8. 2 SCRA 337 [1951]; 18 SCRA 155 [1966].

9. 65 SCRA 237 [1975].

10. 64 SCRA 610 [1972].

11. 16 SCRA 431 [1966].

12. 43 SCRA 397 [1972].

13. Enervida v. De la Torre, 55 SCRA 340 [1974].

14. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Magno, 21 SCRA 292 [1968].

15. C. Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts & Damages, 539 [Revised Edition, 1978].




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






January-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-72964 January 7, 1988 - FILOMENO URBANO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78936 January 7, 1988 - VILLA RHECAR BUS v. FRUCTUOUSO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-70193-96 January 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO C. GALLO

  • G.R. Nos. L-42956-57 January 12, 1988 - A. DORONILA RESOURCES DEV., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43714 January 15, 1988 - FELIX GUEVARRA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49396 January 15, 1988 - JUAN A. GOCHANGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67970 January 15, 1988 - JOSE ABROGAR, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68303 January 15, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72400 January 15, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO D. PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75740 January 15, 1988 - CITYTRUST FINANCE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76233 January 15, 1988 - ZAYDA BISCOCHO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-77502 January 15, 1988 - EMILIA B. SANTIAGO v. PIONEER SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, ET. AL.

  • A.M. No. 1974 January 15, 1988 - ZOILO E. CADELINA v. GENOVEVO Q. MANHILOT

  • G.R. No. L-56431 January 19, 1988 - NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES v. ALFREDO M. LAZARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43445 January 20, 1988 - EUFEMIA VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BARROGA, ET AL. v. ANGEL ALBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63575 January 20, 1988 - ROSA GICANO, ET AL. v. ROSA GEGATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71855 January 20, 1988 - RIZALITO VELUNTA v. CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-74053-54 January 20, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NATHANIEL M. GROSPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-74279 & 74801-03 January 20, 1988 - MAXIMO ROXAS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74655 January 20, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO R. TARUC

  • G.R. No. L-74917 January 20, 1988 - BANCO DE ORO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78131 January 20, 1988 - EDUARDO TANCINCO, ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37674 January 21, 1988 - LIMPAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. CARLOS L. SUNDIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-77107-08 January 21, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO DATAHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-27677-8-9 January 22, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TAGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32749 January 22, 1988 - SABAS H. HOMENA, ET AL. v. DIMAS CASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34893 January 22, 1988 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. GSIS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39019 January 22, 1988 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46373 January 22, 1988 - YAP PENG CHONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46877 January 22, 1988 - LOURDES CYNTHIA MAKABALI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68969 January 22, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. USMAN A. HASSAN

  • A.M. No. 265-MJ January 22, 1988 - LEONARDO B. BABATIO v. JOSE Z. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-66614 January 25, 1988 - PRIMITIVO LEVERIZA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69591 January 25, 1988 - ALICIA DE SANTOS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-71875-76 January 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO C. LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71939 January 25, 1988 - ELIGIO T. LEYVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73461 January 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR MASANGKAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75575 January 25, 1988 - ROGELIO BUCE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80007 January 25, 1988 - CARMELO F. LAZATIN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49046 January 26, 1988 - SATURNO A. VICTORIA v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69259 January 26, 1988 - DELPHER TRADES CORPORATION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37783 January 28, 1988 - LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56960 January 28, 1988 - ELISEA G. ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68741 January 28, 1988 - NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68989 January 28, 1988 - ANDREA CORDOVA VDA. DE GUTIERREZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73584 January 28, 1988 - LEONARDO FAMISAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74187 January 28, 1988 - STANFORD MICROSYSTEMS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75039 January 28, 1988 - FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76668 January 28, 1988 - DULOS REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77970 January 28, 1988 - AMBRAQUE INT’L. PLACEMENT & SERVICES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41154 January 29, 1988 - SILVERIO VERAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44330 January 29, 1988 - JULITA T. VDA. DE SEVERO, ET AL. v. LUNINGNING FELICIANO GO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44546 January 29, 1988 - RUSTICO ADILLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46484 January 29, 1988 - LEONARDO MENDOZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47574 January 29, 1988 - FILIPINAS FABRICATORS & SALES INC., ET AL. v. CELSO L. MAGSINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48011 January 29, 1988 - PEDRO G. PERALTA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LA UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50141 January 29, 1988 - BEAUTIFONT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51352 January 29, 1988 - VERDANT ACRES, INC. v. PONCIANO HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-54500 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO BATAC

  • G.R. No. L-54904 January 29, 1988 - HEIRS OF TITO RILLORTA v. ROMEO N. FIRME

  • G.R. No. L-67706 January 29, 1988 - ILIGAN CONCRETE PRODUCTS v. ANASTACIO MAGADAN

  • G.R. No. L-67813 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. TUNDAY

  • G.R. No. L-68331 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SANTILLAN

  • G.R. No. L-69564 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN G. ESCOBER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69622 January 29, 1988 - LILIA Y. GONZALES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-69757-58 January 29, 1988 - CIRCA NILA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. SALVADOR J. BAYLEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70484 January 29, 1988 - ROMAN C. TUASON, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALOOCAN CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71091 January 29, 1988 - HENRY GALUBA, v. ALFREDO LAURETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72096 January 29, 1988 - JOHN CLEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72126 January 29, 1988 - MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72443 January 29, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AIR INDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72981 January 29, 1988 - FRANCISCA DE LA CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73604 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROUBEN H. CORRAL

  • G.R. No. L-73605 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO REUNIR

  • G.R. No. L-73627 January 29, 1988 - TAN HANG v. ANSBERTO PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74345 January 29, 1988 - FAR CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74369 January 29, 1988 - DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75268 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN C. MELGAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75577 January 29, 1988 - PIO L. PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77735 January 29, 1988 - WILFREDO VERDEJO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78973 January 29, 1988 - MAMINTA M. RADIA v. REVIEW COMMITTEE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 17, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80718 January 29, 1988 - FELISA P. DE ROY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2409 January 29, 1988 - MANUEL Y. MACIAS v. BENJAMIN B. MALIG