Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > May 1988 Decisions > A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC May 9, 1988 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RICARDO M. MAGTIBAY:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. Nos. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC. May 9, 1988.]

THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. HON. RICARDO M. MAGTIBAY, Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; GROSS MISCONDUCT; DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT OF SUSPENSION IN INFORMATION SHEET FOR JUDGES AND RE-ASSUMPTION OF DUTIES DESPITE ORDER OF SUSPENSION. — The court agrees with the findings in the report of the Court Administrator, thus: "Complainant charges the respondent with conduct unbecoming of a judge, dishonesty and lack of candor towards the Supreme Court, based on the following grounds: Failure of the respondent Judge to report his suspension from the practice of law; misrepresentation in filling up his Personal Data Sheet; his continued performance of the duties of a Judge despite his suspension from the practice of law and as a judge. . . . As regards the charge of misrepresentation in filling up the Personal Data Sheet for Judges, the subject question referred is the one found in Form P-401, an information sheet for judges issued by the Supreme Court. Respondent placed ‘N.A.’ on the space opposite the question ‘have you ever been administratively charged?’ If so, give full details including acquittal, dismissal or penalty imposed (Rollo, page 56).’N.A.’ means not applicable. However, the truth is that there was a pending administrative case. (A.C. No. 2489, Magdalena G. Udarbe v. Ricardo Magtibay) against him before the BAR Office of this Court at the time he made that answer. At the time when he filled up the personal data sheet for judges, he knew that Administrative Case No. 2489 was still pending before this Court. Yet he placed ‘N.A.’ which means ‘not applicable.’ Not only that, our record shows (201 file of Judge Magtibay filed with this Court) that respondent re-assumed the performance of his office upon his reappointment in the Judiciary in the recent reorganization despite the order of suspension.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY. — The Court finds the respondent Ricardo Magtibay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of gross misconduct that makes him totally unfit to remain as a Judge. The decision in this case is without prejudice to whatever action the Court may take in AC No. 2489 "Magdalela Udarbe v. Atty. Ricardo Magtibay," the disbarment case awaiting resolution. Respondent RICARDO MAGTIBAY is accordingly DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and leave credits to which he may be entitled.


R E S O L U T I O N


PER CURIAM:



This case involves administrative complaints filed against respondent Ricardo Magtibay both as a practising lawyer and as a member of the judiciary.

The background facts of this administrative matter are:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On December 2, 1982, Judge Ricardo Magtibay, while still a practising lawyer and before he was appointed to the Judiciary, was administratively charged by Magdalena G. Udarbe for gross negligence in the defense of his client, misappropriation of client’s funds and charging attorney’s fees for services not actually rendered and/or grossly disproportionate to services. It was docketed as Administrative Case No. 2489 at the BAR Office of this Court.

"Sometime thereafter, he was appointed Judge of the MCTC of Maragondon and Ternate, Cavite. He took his oath of office on December 16, 1983 (Rollo, Page 51) and started rendering service on December 22, 1983.

"On August 1, 1984, the First Division of this Court in the above cited administrative case issued a resolution (Rollo, page 40) referring the said case to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation and suspending Atty. Magtibay from the practice of law throughout the Philippines effective from notice. It was evidently a preventive not punitive suspension for there was no period given and the complaint was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.

"On November 13, 1984, Cavite Provincial Governor Juanito R. Remulla, by way of an indorsement, (Rollo, page 1) forwarded to this Court the letter of Maragondon Mayor Telesforo A. Unas (Rollo, page 4) who sought assistance from him to ask then Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando (now retired) whether Judge Magtibay’s suspension from the practice of law also suspended him from performing his duties as presiding judge of MCTC, Maragondon-Ternate, Cavite.

"Acting on the aforesaid letter of Mayor Telesforo A. Unas, the court in its resolution en banc dated February 5, 1985 (Rollo, p. page 26) resolved to (a) CONSIDER Judge Ricardo Magtibay suspended from office for the duration of his suspension from the practice of law, effective immediately, and to (b) DIRECT the Office of the Court Administrator to initiate administrative charges against Judge Magtibay for conduct unbecoming of a Judge for his lack of candor towards the Supreme Court for his failure to report his suspension in Administrative Case No. 2489 and his misrepresentation in the filling up of his Personal Data Sheet for Judges." (pp. 99-100, Rollo)

Complying with the Court’s directive in its en banc resolution dated February 5, 1985, the then Acting Court Administrator instituted a complaint charging the respondent with "Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge and Misrepresentation in Filling Up his Personal Data Sheet for Judges."cralaw virtua1aw library

Meanwhile, the Court received reports that respondent Magtibay continued to discharge his functions as Judge of the Maragondon-Ternate Municipal Circuit Trial Court although he had earlier been suspended from his office by this Court.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

After directing the Office of the Court Administrator to investigate the new complaints and acting on the report submitted pursuant to our directive, we issued a resolution on February 2, 1988 in Administrative Matter No. 88-1-2807 which reads, inter alia:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"In the resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 5, 1985, in Administrative Matter No. 84-11-4789 MTC, Judge Ricardo M. Magtibay was considered suspended from office as judge for the duration of his indefinite suspension from the practice of law, which was earlier ordered by the First Division of the Court in its resolution dated August 1, 1984, in Administrative Case No. 2489 (Magdalena G. Udarbe v. Atty. Ricardo Magtibay.

"Judge Magtibay was retained in the Judiciary after the reorganization concluded on January 30, 1987, but he has not yet submitted his oath of office. He nevertheless assumed his post as Judge of the MCTC, Maragondon-Ternate, Cavite on February 23, 1987, and thereafter performed the functions thereof, and of the MCTC at Indang-Mendez, Cavite after having been inadvertently designated by Executive Judge Enrique M. Almario on May 27, 1987 to try cases there twice a week.

"By a directive from the Office of the Court Administrator dated June 16, 1987, he was categorically ordered to desist from discharging the duties of the Judge of the MCTC in view of his subsisting suspension. On December 11, 1987, Executive Judge Almario also revoked the designation he previously made. The records of the Statistics Decision of this Court disclose, however, that from February 1987 to December 1987, Judge Magtibay decided thirty-six (36) cases docketed in his regular sala at Maragondon-Ternate, four (4) of them after having received the OCA directive on July 18, 1987. Sixteen (16) of the thirty (30) cages he resolved at the Indang-Mendez MCTC from June 1987 to October 1987 were also decided with knowledge of such injunction.

"In view of the foregoing, the Court. Resolved to — (1) SUSPEND Judge Ricardo M. Magtibay from the Office of MCTC of Maragondon-Ternate and to ORDER him to forthwith CEASE discharging the functions of Judge until further orders from this Court on pain of criminal prosecution and (2) likewise ORDER him to SHOW CAUSE, within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt thereof, why he should not be removed and/or disbarred from the service for his willful and continued defiance of the Resolution of this Court dated February 5, 1985 and of the Directive from the Office of the Court Administrator dated June 16, 1987 and (3) to ORDER the Clerks of Court of the MCTC of Maragondon-Ternate and Indang-Mendez in Cavite and all the personnel thereof to DESIST from recognizing him as Judge and obeying his instructions, and from promulgating or in any way carrying out or implementing any of his decisions and orders."cralaw virtua1aw library

On March 8, 1988, the Office of the Court Administrator submitted its report pursuant to the February 5, 1985 directive in Administrative Matter No. R-254-MTJ.

We agree with the following findings in the above cited report:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Complainant charges the respondent with conduct unbecoming of a judge, dishonesty and lack of candor towards the Supreme Court, based on the following grounds: Failure of the respondent Judge to report his suspension from the practice of law; misrepresentation in filling up his Personal Data Sheet; his continued performance of the duties of a Judge despite his suspension from the practice of law and as a judge.

"In his answer, (Rollo, pages 58-59) respondent Judge explained that despite the resolution of this Court on August 1, 1984 suspending him from the practice of law, he proceeded to perform his duties as a Judge in good faith and to the best of his ability because of the advise of a former assemblyman from Cavite who was of the opinion that since the suspension refers to these acts as trial counsel in a case that arose from facts prior to his appointment as a judge, it should not be a bar to the performance of his duties as trial judge. Moreover, he said that he was confident that this Court’s records will reflect his suspension. So he felt that the Court would advise him not to continue in the performance of office if it was not proper. But he was not advised, he said.

"Respondent denied he maliciously misrepresented this pertinent fact in his Personal Data Sheet. He explained, that he suffered a grevious (sic) mental lapse when he saw the words ‘acquittal, dismissal, or penalty imposed.’ He honestly believed that the question did not apply to him because there was, as yet no acquittal, dismissal or any penalty imposed on him. So he pleads for this Court’s compassion and understanding.

"Records also show that on August 7, 1985, respondent Judge wrote a letter (Rollo, page 65) to then Chief Justice Felix Makasiar seeking advice and guidance on the possibility of him resigning as MCTC Judge. The Court, however, advised respondent Judge not to resign. He was told to await the termination of the investigation of the administrative case in the BAR Division and of the administrative complaint in the OCAD (resolution, August 27, 1985, page 81).

"Considering that the issues raised in the administrative case against respondent Judge in the BAR Office are different from that filed before this Office, the latter case referring more to his conduct as a Judge rather than as a law practitioner, the evaluation of said case can now be made without awaiting the result of the investigation in the BAR Office.

"As regards the charge of misrepresentation in filling up the Personal Data Sheet for Judges, the subject question referred is the one found in Form P-401, an information sheet for judges issued by the Supreme Court. Respondent placed ‘N.A.’ on the space opposite the question ‘have you ever been administratively charged?’ If so, give full details including acquittal, dismissal or penalty imposed (Rollo, page 56).’N.A.’ means not applicable. However, the truth is that there was a pending administrative case. (A.C. No. 2489, Magdalena G. Udarbe v. Ricardo Magtibay) against him before the BAR Office of this Court at the time he made that answer.

"Respondent said that he suffered a grievous mental lapse at that time. This is a very shallow and flimsy excuse to consider. There can be no doubt as to the clear import of the above questions. The sole question is: ‘Have you ever been administratively charged?’ Evidently, it should have been answered in the affirmative.

"Considering the clear import of the question, it is evident that the respondent deliberately concealed a pertinent fact when he made an untruthful answer to the aforesaid question. At the time when he filled up the personal data sheet for judges, he knew that Administrative Case No. 2489 was still pending before this Court. Yet he placed ‘N.A.’ which means ‘not applicable.’

"This deliberate concealment supports the charge of conduct unbecoming of a judge. This deliberate concealment shows lack of candor towards the Supreme Court. This failure to report his suspension in Administrative Case No. 2489, which is an important and relevant fact, betrays a flaw in his character that makes him unfit to remain in his position as a judge — an office that demands the highest standards of integrity.

"Not only that, our record shows (201 file of Judge Magtibay filed with this Court) that respondent re-assumed the performance of his office upon his reappointment in the Judiciary in the recent reorganization despite the order of suspension. In fact, a latter directive had to be sent by the Court Administrator on June 16, 1987 to remind him of the resolution dated February 5, 1985 in AM No. 84-11-4789-MTC and to direct him to immediately desist from performing his functions as a judge of the 1st MCTC of Cavite. Despite receipt of said directive, the respondent continued performing his duties as a Judge up to October, 1987 as reflected in his monthly report of cases submitted to the Statistics Division of this Court. This shows not only a willful disrespect and disobedience to the order of the highest Court but a willful commission of acts that are tantamout to the usurpation of authority. . . ." (pp. 100-103, Rollo)

After considering carefully the records of this administrative matter, the Court finds the respondent Ricardo Magtibay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of gross misconduct that makes him totally unfit to remain as a Judge.

The decision in this case is without prejudice to whatever action the Court may take in AC No. 2489 "Magdalela Udarbe v. Atty. Ricardo Magtibay," the disbarment case awaiting resolution.chanrobles law library : red

WHEREFORE, respondent RICARDO MAGTIBAY is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of gross misconduct unbefitting a member of the judiciary and is accordingly DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and leave credits to which he may be entitled.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (C.J.), Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47717 May 2, 1988 - IGNACIO PASCUA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF SEGUNDO SIMEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76353 May 2, 1988 - SOPHIA ALCUAZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43446 May 3, 1988 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-39272 May 4, 1988 - EUGENIA SALAMAT VDA. DE MEDINA v. FERNANDO A. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66183 May 4, 1988 - RICARDO O. MONTINOLA, JR. v. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67451 May 4, 1988 - REALTY SALES ENTERPRISE, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74410 May 4, 1988 - PABLO MAYOR v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53984 May 5, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO V. ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-70987 May 5, 1988 - GREGORIO Y. LIMPIN, JR., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78605 May 5, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53907 May 6, 1988 - MODERN FISHING GEAR LABOR UNION v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-57719-21 May 6, 1988 - WILFREDO DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76595 May 6, 1988 - PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC May 9, 1988 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RICARDO M. MAGTIBAY

  • G.R. No. L-30964 May 9, 1988 - SY CHIE JUNK SHOP, ET AL. v. FOITAF, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43825 May 9, 1988 - CONTINENTAL MARBLE CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46303 May 9, 1988 - VICENTE S. UMALI v. JORGE COQUIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47968 May 9, 1989

    LINA MONTILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48064 May 9, 1988 - ANTHONY POWERS, ET AL. v. DONALD I. MARSHALL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49893 May 9, 1988 - DANIEL C. ASPACIO v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51278 May 9, 1988 - HEIRS OF RAMON PIZARRO, SR. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54090 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABRAHAM P. SERANILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56505 May 9, 1988 - MAXIMO PLENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56923 May 9, 1988 - RAMON J. ALEGRE v. MANUEL T. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57061 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANGUIGIN MACATANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57280 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH IV, QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68940 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO ABAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77227 May 9, 1988 - COMMANDER REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78604 May 9, 1988 - BATAAN SHIPYARD and ENGINEERING CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81190 May 9, 1988 - MATIAS B. AZNAR III, ET AL. v. JUANITO A. BERNAD, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-6-RTJ May 11, 1988 - PELAGIO SICAT v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38426 May 11, 1988 - PEDRO DE VILLA v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-48848 May 11, 1988 - FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48889 May 11, 1989

    DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. L-65680 May 11, 1988 - JOSE B. SARMIENTO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L79644 May 11, 1988 - LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53873 May 13, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. LAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47379 May 16, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3153 May 17, 1988 - JUANITO L. HAW TAY v. EDUARDO SINGAYAO

  • G.R. No. L-58652 May 20, 1988 - ALFREDO B. RODILLAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50242 May 21, 1988 - E. RAZON, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53966 May 21, 1988 - IN RE: JOSE B. YUSAY, ET AL. v. TERESITA Y. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-60487 May 21, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-72069 & L-72070 May 21, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77465 May 21, 1988 - UY TONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78343 May 21, 1988 - HEIRS OF RICARDO OLIVAS v. FLORENTINO A. FLOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37409 May 23, 1988 - NICOLAS VALISNO v. FELIPE ADRIANO

  • G.R. No. L-47414 May 23, 1988 - ELIODORO T. ISCALA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71863 May 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO POLICARPIO KHAN

  • G.R. No. L-73491 May 23, 1988 - CONCEPCION B. TUPUE v. JOSE URGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74907 May 23, 1988 - PEDRO S. LACSA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76258 May 23, 1988 - JUANITO S. AMANDY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79010 May 23, 1988 - GENEROSO CORTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30751 May 24, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENERAL ACCEPTANCE AND FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38570 May 24, 1988 - DOMINGO PADUA v. VICENTE ERICTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57145 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN ATUTUBO

  • G.R. No. L-66575 May 24, 1988 - ADRIANO MANECLANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71909 May 24, 1988 - JANE CUA, ET AL. v. CARMEN LECAROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80066 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36007 May 25, 1988 - FERNANDO GALLARDO v. JUAN BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. L-61093 May 25, 1988 - ELIGIO P. MALLARI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65483 May 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVINO T. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 74451 May 25, 1988 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77859 May 25, 1988 - CENTURY TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64349 May 27, 1988 - CARLOS CARPIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-46188 May 28, 1988 - HELENA ALMAZAR v. PEDRO D. CENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46556 May 28, 1988 - NAPOLEON O. CARIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51101 May 28, 1988 - RUFINO NAZARETH, ET AL. v. RENATO S. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53650 May 28, 1988 - VIRGINIA M. RAMOS v. ABDUL-WAHID A. BIDIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56362 May 28, 1988 - TOMASITA AQUINO v. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56429 May 28, 1988 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. FIDEL PURISIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58997 May 28, 1988 - MARCELINO TIBURCIO v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60937 May 28, 1988 - WALTER ASCONA LEE, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61223 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO L. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. L-61464 May 28, 1988 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66884 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TEMBLOR

  • G.R. No. 77047 May 28, 1988 - JOAQUINA R-INFANTE DE ARANZ, ET AL. v. NICOLAS GALING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38303 May 30, 1988 - HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. RALPH PAULI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43866 May 30, 1988 - PETRONIO COLLADO, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48757 May 30, 1988 - MAURO GANZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-67158, 67159, 67160, 67161, & 67162 May 30, 1988 - CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24842 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CARDENAS

  • G.R. No. L-36480 May 31, 1988 - ANDREW PALERMO v. PYRAMID INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-36773 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54290 May 31, 1988 - DON PEPE HENSON ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. IRINEO PANGILINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57650 May 31, 1988 - CATALINO Y. TINGA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-59801 May 31, 1988 - LEONOR P. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67948 May 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON MONTEALEGRE

  • G.R. No. 78775 May 31, 1988 - JOSE UNCHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80774 May 31, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81805 May 31, 1988 - VAR-ORIENT SHIPPING CO., INC., ET AL. v. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82330 May 31, 1988 - DIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CLEMENTE M. SORIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82568 May 31, 1988 - ALFREDO R.A. BENGZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.