Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > May 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-50242 May 21, 1988 - E. RAZON, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-50242. May 21, 1988.]

E. RAZON, INC., Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, Respondents.

Cruz, Durian & Academia Law Office for Petitioner.

Inocencio R. Serranilla for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. MERCANTILE LAW; INSURANCE; LIMITATION OF LIABILITY; WAS OVERCOME BY DECLARATION OF ACTUAL INVOICES OF VALUE OF GOODS BEFORE ARRIVAL. — It is unrebutted that MGM Importers, upon arrival of the shipment, declared the same for tax purposes, as well as for the assessment of arrastre charges and other fees (Plaintiffs Memorandum), Civil Case No. 81460, page 26, CA, Record on Appeal of E. Razon, Inc.). For the purpose, the invoice, packing list and other shipping documents were presented to the Bureau of Customs as well as to petitioner E. Razon for the proper assessment of the arrastre charges and other fees. Such manifestation satisfies the condition of declaration of the actual invoices of the value of the goods before arrival of the goods, to overcome the limitation of liability of the arrastre operator.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; "BEFORE ARRIVAL OF GOODS", CONSTRUED. — The provision in the management contract regarding the declaration of the actual invoice value "before the arrival of the goods" must be understood to mean a declaration before the arrival of the goods in the custody of the arrastre operator, whether it be done long before the landing of the shipment at port, or immediately before turn-over thereof to the arrastre operator’s custody.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — Having been duly informed of the actual invoice value of the merchandise under its custody and having received payment of arrastre charges based thereon, E. Razon, Inc., as arrastre operator, cannot in justice insist on a limitation of its liability, under the contract, to less than the value of each undelivered case or package consigned to MGM Importers, Inc.

4. ID.; ID.; PURPOSE OF STIPULATION REQUIRING CONSIGNEES TO GIVE CONTRACTOR ADVANCE NOTICE OF ACTUAL INVOICE VALUE OF GOODS. — The stipulation requiring a consignee to inform the contractor or arrastre operator and give the advance notice of the actual invoice value of the goods to be put in its custody is for the purpose of determining its liability, that it may obtain compensation commensurable to the risk it assumes, not for the purpose of determining the degree of care or diligence it must exercise as a depository or warehouseman (Lua Kian v. Manila Railroad, Co., Et Al., 19 SCRA 5).


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


This is a petition to review by certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 56751-R, affirming in toto the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 81460, entitled "Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation v. Northern Lines, Inc. and/or E. Razon, Inc. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant E. Razon, Inc. to pay plaintiff the sum of P10,899.28 with legal interest from date of filing of the complaint, November 13, 1970, until fully paid, and costs.

"The complaint is dismissed as against defendant Northern Lines, Inc." (Rollo, p. 13)

Civil Case No. 81460 was filed by respondent Pioneer Insurance as insurer-subrogee, to recover from either or both defendants, jointly and severally, the sum of P21,937.75 representing the invoice value, freight costs and other importation expenses of three (3) cases of radio and phonograph parts short-delivered from a total of eighty-six (86) cases of said articles from Kobe, Japan, shipped aboard the SS "Don Jacinto II" of the defendant Northern Lines, Inc., for delivery to the consignee MGM Importers Corporation at Manila. The total shipment was insured by Pioneer.

On November 14, 1969, the shipment was discharged from the carrying vessel into the custody of E. Razon, Inc., one of the arrastre operators in the Port of Manila, charged with the obligation of handling, custody and delivery of all cargo discharged at the government piers of Manila. The shipment was delivered to its consignee, MGM Importers with losses and damages valued at P21,937.75.

On December 12, 1969, E. Razon certified that out of 86 cases of radio parts loaded on board the SS "DON JACINTO II" under Bill of Lading No. KM-18, only 83 cases had been delivered to the consignee.

Formal claims were thus filed by MGM Importers with Northern Lines and E. Razon, as well as the Pioneer Insurance Company. The latter indemnified the assured in the sum of P21,937.75 covering the full value of the lost cargo.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

In its Answer, E. Razon denied liability on the grounds that (a) the whole cargo was not received from the carrying vessel and (b) the shipment was delivered to the consignee in the same quantity and condition that E. Razon, Inc. received the same from the vessel. However, it alleged that in the remote possibility it is held liable, its liability must be limited to the amount fixed under the provisions of the Revised Management Contract, that is, P2,000 per package.

On the other hand, Northern Lines alleged that the shipment had been completely unloaded and received by E. Razon, Inc.; that it exercised extraordinary diligence; and that the complaint has no cause of action.

Thereafter, the parties entered into a stipulation of fact, under which the defendants Northern Lines and E. Razon, Inc. admitted, among others, that (a) the entire shipment of 86 radio parts were unloaded from the vessel "DON JACINTO II" unto the custody of E. Razon as shown by the Statement of Deliveries and the cargo receipts; (b) E. Razon certified that out of 86 cases only 83 cases had been delivered to the consignee; (c) on November 25, 1969, the consignee, MGM Importers, filed a formal claim for the missing cases; and (d) Plaintiff Pioneer indemnified the consignee in the sum of P21,937.75.

On July 24, 1972, after filing their respective memoranda, defendant Northern Lines, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that under the Stipulation of Facts, E. Razon admitted that it received from the vessel the complete shipment as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"III. Plaintiff and defendant E. Razon admit that the entire shipment of 86 cases radio parts were unloaded from the vessel ‘Don Jacinto II’ unto the custody of E. Razon as shown by the summary of deliveries (Statement of deliveries) a copy of which being herewith attached and Exh. "I" (Northern Lines) and under the cargo receipts stated herein which are likewise attached herewith and marked as Exh. "2" to Exh. "2-V" (Northern Lines.)" (Rollo, p. 25)

After hearing, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered its decision ordering defendant E. Razon to indemnify plaintiff Pioneer the sum of P10,899.28 with legal interest and dismissing the case against defendant Northern Lines, leaving the controversy against E. Razon, Inc. alone.

On December 18, 1974, E. Razon, Inc. filed its appeal with the Court of Appeals which rendered its decision on January 4, 1978, affirming in toto the trial court’s decision. On March 9, 1979, the Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.

The sole issue raised by the petitioner is the general limitation of its liability to P2,000 per case lost or destroyed as provided in Paragraph or Clause XX of the Revised Management Contract it had entered into with the Bureau of Customs which reads:chanrobles.com : virtual law library

"The CONTRACTOR shall at its own expense handle all merchandise upon or over said piers, wharves, and other designated places and at its own expense perform all work undertaken by it hereunder diligently and in a skillful workman like and efficient manner; that the contractor shall be solely responsible as an independent CONTRACTOR, and hereby agrees to accept liability and to promptly pay to the steamship company, consignee consignor, or other interested party or parties for the loss, damage, or non-delivery of cargoes to the extent of the actual invoice value of each package which in no case shall be more than Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) for each package unless the value of the importation is otherwise specified or communicated in writing together with the invoice value and supported by a certified packing list to the CONTRACTOR by the interested party or parties before the arrival of the goods, as well as all damages that may be suffered on account of loss, damage or destruction of any merchandise while in custody or under the control of the CONTRACTOR upon any pier, wharf or other designated place under the supervision of the Bureau, but said CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible for the condition of any package received nor for the weight, nor for any loss, injury or damage to the said cargo before or while the goods are being received or remain on the piers or wharves, or if the loss, injury or damage is caused by force majeure, or other causes beyond the CONTRACTOR’s control, or capacity to prevent or remedy." (Rollo, p. 26)

It is the petitioner’s contention that the unequivocal text of the aforequoted provision of the Revised Management Contract denotes a clear rule in the limited liability of E. Razon, Inc., that is, it should not exceed P2,000 per package, except only in case the value of the importation is specified, manifested or communicated in writing together with the certified packing list to the contractor before the arrival of the goods. Petitioner reads the same to mean notification before arrival of the vessel. Thus, not having been notified prior to the docking of the SS "Don Jacinto II," E. Razon denies its liability to MGM Importers or to its subrogee Pioneer Insurance.

The respondent maintains otherwise. It argues that "Under the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code, for purposes of clearing cargo from the Bureau of Customs, the Invoice, Packing List, Bill of Lading and other documents must be submitted for processing and computation of customs duties, arrastre charges," satisfying the condition of exception to the P2,000 limitation of liability of the arrastre operator.

We rule in favor of the respondents.

It is unrebutted that MGM Importers, upon arrival of the shipment, declared the same for tax purposes, as well as for the assessment of arrastre charges and other fees (Plaintiffs Memorandum), Civil Case No. 81460, page 26, CA, Record on Appeal of E. Razon, Inc.). For the purpose, the invoice, packing list and other shipping documents were presented to the Bureau of Customs as well as to petitioner E. Razon for the proper assessment of the arrastre charges and other fees. Such manifestation satisfies the condition of declaration of the actual invoices of the value of the goods before arrival of the goods, to overcome the limitation of liability of the arrastre operator.

Indeed, the provision in the management contract regarding the declaration of the actual invoice value "before the arrival of the goods" must be understood to mean a declaration before the arrival of the goods in the custody of the arrastre operator, whether it be done long before the landing of the shipment at port, or immediately before turn-over thereof to the arrastre operator’s custody. What is essential is knowledge beforehand of the extent of the risk to be undertaken by the arrastre operator, as determined by the value of the property committed to its care that it may define its responsibility for loss or damage to such cargo and to ascertain compensation commensurate to such risk assumed (Northern Motors, Inc. v. Prince Lines, 107 Phil. 203). Having been duly informed of the actual invoice value of the merchandise under its custody and having received payment of arrastre charges based thereon, E. Razon, Inc., as arrastre operator, cannot in justice insist on a limitation of its liability, under the contract, to less than the value of each undelivered case or package consigned to MGM Importers, Inc. The lower courts judgment finding the petitioner liable for the full declared value of the three (3) undelivered cases in question must be upheld.

The petitioner further contends that only two (2) cases of radio parts were missing, the third case having been delivered with some shortages, thus reducing its liability. There is nothing on record to sufficiently sustain such allegation. The petitioner’s own certification of delivery refutes its claim. Exhibit "E" (p. 8 Folder of Exhibits) shows that out of the manifested quantity of Eighty-Six (86) cases of radio parts, speaker parts and phonograph parts, only (83) cases were delivered by E. Razon as of said date, in accordance with its records. No further deliveries were made to the consignee MGM Importers, Inc.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Finally, we reiterate the Court of Appeals pronouncements regarding the petitioner’s obligation as arrastre operator. The petitioner avers that:"

". . . The reason for the requirement of advance notice in writing before the arrival of the goods is to put the defendant-appellant arrastre operator on the alert about the arrival of the goods so that they could exert extraordinary care and supervision in seeing that the goods should be taken care of and ultimately delivered to the consignee. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Reacting thereto, the respondent court held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . under appellant’s interpretation, the contractor would only exercise care and caution in the handling of goods announced to it beforehand to be of sizeable value. Appellant, in other words, spurns the public service nature of its business. What difference, in care and consideration, should there be between a package containing goods worth, say, one hundred pesos and one containing goods worth one thousand pesos, for as long as the charges are duly paid? Why should appellant require consignors/consignees to undergo extra time and expenses to advise/warn him beforehand to handle his cargo ‘with care’ because it is worth more than P2,000.00? Would failure to so notify the contractor give the latter the license to treat the cargo with less than the attention ordinarily expected of it? . . . (Rollo, pp. 29-30)

Rightly so.

The stipulation requiring a consignee to inform the contractor or arrastre operator and give the advance notice of the actual invoice value of the goods to be put in its custody is for the purpose of determining its liability, that it may obtain compensation commensurable to the risk it assumes, not for the purpose of determining the degree of care or diligence it must exercise as a depository or warehouseman (Lua Kian v. Manila Railroad, Co., Et Al., 19 SCRA 5). Article 1163, vis-a-vis Article 1972 of the Civil Code on obligations of the depository provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Every person obliged to give something is also obliged to take care of it with the proper diligence of a good father of a family, unless the law or stipulation of the parties requires another standard of care."cralaw virtua1aw library

With its further responsibility as a public service operator, the obligation of the petitioner to exercise care and diligence can be no less.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The judgment appealed from ordering the petitioner to pay the respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation "the sum of P10,899.28 with legal interest from the date of filing of the complaint, November 13, 1970, until fully paid and costs" is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan (Chairman), 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.