Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > May 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-30964 May 9, 1988 - SY CHIE JUNK SHOP, ET AL. v. FOITAF, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-30964. May 9, 1988.]

SY CHIE JUNK SHOP and SY CHIE SENG, Petitioners, v. FEDERACION OBRERA DE LA INDUSTRIA Y OTROS TRABAJADORES DE FILIPINAS (FOITAF), ISMAEL CASIDSID, BIENVENIDO JAVIER, JOSE OBADO, JOSE MACATANGAY, RODOLFO RUBIO and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

A.S. Bustos, for Petitioners.

Jose R. Millares for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL COURT, BINDING ON APPEAL. — It is clear from the aforequoted provision of law that the factual findings of the public respondent especially when arrived at en banc as in the instant case are conclusive and binding upon us in the absence of a showing that said findings have no support in the evidence of record. This is in line with the time-honoured principle that: "The Court of Industrial Relations is governed by the rule of substantial evidence rather than by the role of preponderance of evidence as in ordinary civil cases."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; TERMINATION PAY LAW; EMPLOYMENT; CLOSING OR CESSATION OF ESTABLISHMENT AS VALID GROUND MUST NOT BE USED AS A HANDY EXCUSE TO PUT AN END TO EMPLOYEES’ UNION ACTIVITIES; CASE AT BAR. — The fourth paragraph of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1052, as amended by Republic Act No. 1787 (also known as the Termination Pay Law) partly reads that the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or enterprise, is a just cause for termination. The findings of the respondent court disclose that the closure of the petitioners’ business came as a handy excuse to put an end to the private respondents’ union activities. The petitioners’ endeavor to justify the cessation of their operation as a junk shop by invoking the Nationalization of Retail Trade Law cannot be entertained since it is a new matter being raised for the first time in this appeal. Nevertheless, granting arguendo that the petitioners are covered by the aforecited law they cannot validly claim that it prohibited them from transferring their place of business because what the law disallows is the putting up of an entirely new or additional business site, not the physical movement of an existing one. (see Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1180, as amended; Dialdas v. Perdices, 101 Phil. 756).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL DISMISSAL; PAYMENT OF SEPARATION PAY WHERE REINSTATEMENT NOT POSSIBLE. — The public respondent’s order for the private respondents’ reinstatement to their former positions is no longer possible under the circumstances. An award equivalent to three years backwages plus separation pay to compensate for their illegal separation is thus proper.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


This is a petition to review by way of certiorari the decision of the public respondent and its subsequent resolution in a case filed by private respondents charging petitioner Sy Chie Seng (also known as Chua Chit) with unfair labor practices under Republic Act No. 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act, as amended.

The pertinent facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioner Sy Chie Seng is the owner and proprietor of Sy Chie Junk Shop engaged in buying second-hand goods such as used empty bottles, copper, cast iron and the like, using for his business the leased premises owned by one Alejandro Garcia at 275 Jaboneros Street, Binondo, Manila.

The respondent-employees worked for the petitioner in his junk shop business until they were allegedly dismissed from their jobs because of their affiliation with the respondent union.

In their unfair labor practices case docketed as Case No. 5029-ULP before the Court of Industrial Relations in Manila, the private respondents claimed, among others, that the petitioner interfered with their right to self-organization; that petitioner Sy refused to bargain in good faith with their union; and that they were indiscriminately terminated without due notice.

The petitioner shop and its owner, by way of answer, denied having committed any of the unfair labor practice acts charged. They counter-alleged that the separation of the private respondents from their work was with due notice and for a justifiable cause which was the closure of the business establishment in view of the repeated demands of the owner of the leased business premises to vacate the site.

After due hearing, the Court of Industrial Relations decided in favor of the private respondents in the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Conformably with the foregoing facts and conclusions arrived at, the Court finds respondents guilty of unfair labor practices as charged. Accordingly, respondent Chua Chit alias Sy Chie Seng is directed to cease and desist from further committing such unfair labor practices; to bargain in good faith with the union; to reinstate complaining workers Ismael Casidsid, Bienvenido Javier, Jose Obado, Rodolfo Rubio and Jose Macatangay to their former positions with full backwages from the date of their dismissals on March 31, 1967, up to their actual reinstatement, with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereto." (p. 73, Rollo)

The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the public respondent sitting en banc. Hence, the present petition was filed assigning as errors the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


"THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS ARE GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.

II


"THE INDUSTRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING PETITIONERS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM FURTHER COMMITTING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION IN GOOD FAITH; AND TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINING WORKERS WITH BACKWAGES FROM THEIR DISMISSALS UP TO THEIR REINSTATEMENT.

III


"THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IS NULL AND VOID FOR BEING CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE EVIDENCE AND IMPOSSIBLE OF EXECUTION." (pp. 1-2, Brief for Petitioners)

The bone of contention in this case is whether or not the closure of petitioner junk shop leading to the cessation of its operations as a business enterprise was for a valid and just cause, hence, not discriminatory.

We have two irreconcilable factual allegations before us. The petitioners argue that the closure of their business establishment was for a valid cause considering that the owner of the leased premises which served as their business site repeatedly demanded that they vacate the place. According to them, they could not transfer nor resume their business elsewhere in view of the prohibition under Republic Act No. 1180 "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business," more popularly known as the Nationalization of Retail Trade Act applicable to aliens.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The private respondents, on the other hand, contend that the petitioners’ invocation of the Nationalization of Retail Trade Act to justify the closure of their business was a mere afterthought. They point out that the records of the case in the court below show that the only reason given for the closure were the repeated demands to vacate made by the owner of the leased business premises. Moreover, the private respondents maintain that the closure of the petitioners’ business was, in effect, discriminatory in the sense that it occurred at a time when the former had just handed their union proposals and sometime after the latter urged the complaining workers to disaffiliate from the union or else said workers would lose their jobs.

We sustain the factual findings of the respondent court.

The Court of Industrial Relations stated that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"There is even nothing in the record to establish that respondents had replied to complainant union’s proposals and/or labor demands and inform it of the impossibility of bargaining in view of the projected closure of the business occasioned by the demands to vacate the leased premises, since the union’s labor demands were undisputedly sent after the letters to vacate were received by respondent Chua Chit and long before the date of the actual closure of the business establishment. The first letter of the union to respondent is dated February 2, 1967 (Exhibit "A"), and sent by registered mail on February 3, 1967 (Exhibit "B-1"); while the alleged notice of closure commenced sometime between February 26, 1967 to March 4, 1967. The declaration, however, of Chua Chit attests to the fact that the actual notifications to complaining workers about their forthcoming lay-off were done on the date of the signing of said notices and receipt of weekly wages on March 4, 1967 (t.s.n., p. 30, November 13, 1968). This will clearly disclose that when respondent Chua Chit decided to cease operation of his business, he was already aware of the existence of the union in his establishment. While it may be true that the letters to vacate the leased premises were dated November 15, 1966 and January 15, 1967, yet the aforementioned decision came about in the latter part of February, 1967, as can be discerned from the very testimonies of respondent Chua Chit and witness Manuel L. Pitco (t.s.n. pp. 30 and 43, November 13, 1968). In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the inescapable conclusion is that the decision to close shop came only after the receipt of the union’s labor demands and the refusal of the individual complainants to heed respondent Chua Chit’s urgings for them to disaffiliate from the union. There is indeed a clear motivation on the part of respondents to get rid of complaining workers by reason of their union affiliation and/or activities." (pp. 23-25, Rollo)

Republic Act No. 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act, as amended, provides in explicit terms that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 6. Unfair Labor Practice Cases — Appeals. — . . . The findings of the Court (i.e., the Court of Industrial Relations) with respect to questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record shall be conclusive. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is clear from the aforequoted provision of law that the factual findings of the public respondent especially when arrived at en banc as in the instant case are conclusive and binding upon us in the absence of a showing that said findings have no support in the evidence of record. This is in line with the time-honoured principle that:cralawnad

"The Court of Industrial Relations is governed by the rule of substantial evidence rather than by the role of preponderance of evidence as in ordinary civil cases." (Sanchez v. Court of Industrial Relations, 8 SCRA 654 citing Iloilo Chinese Commercial School v. Fabrigar, Et Al., 3 SCRA 712; see also Almoite v. Pacific Architects and Engineers, Inc., Et Al., 142 SCRA 623; Philippine Sugar Institute v. Court of Industrial Relations, Et Al., 19 SCRA’ 471; Industrial, Commercial Agricultural Workers Organization (ICAWO) v. Bautista, Et Al., 7 SCRA 907).

Hence, in this appeal by certiorari, we do not look into the correctness of the findings of fact made by the public respondent (see G.P.T.C. Employees Union v. Court of Industrial Relations, Et Al., 102 Phil. 538).

We simply ascertain whether there is substantial evidence to support them. We find that there is such evidence.

Our remaining task is to determine whether or not the closure of the petitioners’ business establishment constituted a just cause for terminating the private respondents.

The fourth paragraph of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1052, as amended by Republic Act No. 1787 (also known as the Termination Pay Law) partly reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The following are just causes for terminating an employment without a definite period:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. By the employer -

"a. The closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or enterprise, unless the closing is for the purpose of defeating the intention of this law;"

x       x       x


The findings of the respondent court disclose that the closure of the petitioners’ business came as a handy excuse to put an end to the private respondents’ union activities. There is no showing that the petitioners made any effort to allow the private respondents’ attempts to exercise their right to self-organization and collective bargaining. The respondents were even threatened by petitioner Sy Chie Seng that they would lose their jobs if they did not cease affiliation with the respondent union. In the case of TUPAS Local Chapter No. 979 v. The National Labor Relations Commission, (139 SCRA 478), we held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The employer’s nefarious objective of busting the workers’ union before it could even be born and see the light of day and justice would thus be a fait accompli, in gross violation of the constitutional guarantee of the workers’ right ‘to self-organization and collective bargaining for just and humane conditions of work."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioners’ endeavor to justify the cessation of their operation as a junk shop by invoking the Nationalization of Retail Trade Law cannot be entertained since it is a new matter being raised for the first time in this appeal. Nevertheless, granting arguendo that the petitioners are covered by the aforecited law they cannot validly claim that it prohibited them from transferring their place of business because what the law disallows is the putting up of an entirely new or additional business site, not the physical movement of an existing one. (see Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1180, as amended; Dialdas v. Perdices, 101 Phil. 756).chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

The public respondent’s order for the private respondents’ reinstatement to their former positions is no longer possible under the circumstances. An award equivalent to three years backwages plus separation pay to compensate for their illegal separation is thus proper. (see Bautista v. Inciong, Et Al., G.R. No. 52824, March 16, 1988; Hope Christian High School v. National Labor Relations Commission, 135 SCRA 251; Divine Word High School v. National Labor Relations Commission, 143 SCRA 346; Akay Printing Press v. Minister of Labor and Employment, Et Al., 140 SCRA 381; Panay Railways, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 137 SCRA 480; Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Encarnacion, 136 SCRA 256; Medical Doctors, Inc. (Makati Medical Center) v. National Labor Relations Commission, 136 SCRA 1; City Service Corporation Workers Union v. City Service Corporation, 135 SCRA 564; Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 135 SCRA 697).

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned decision is AFFIRMED with the modification that the petitioners are ordered to pay the private respondents an amount corresponding to THREE YEARS backwages and separation pay as determined under Republic Act No. 1052, as amended by Republic Act No. 1787 in lieu of reinstatement with full backwages.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, 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.