Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > May 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-43866 May 30, 1988 - PETRONIO COLLADO, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-43866. May 30, 1988.]

PETRONIO COLLADO and ROMUALDA COLLADO, Petitioners, v. HON. HAROLD M. HERNANDO as Presiding Judge, Branch I, Court of First Instance of Abra, JUANITO F. GO, MAY V. GO, AGRIPINO BRILLANTES and JULIANA B. BRILLANTES, Respondents.

Paterno Aquino, for Petitioners.

Agripino A. Brillantes for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT RENDERED NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE RULES ON PROCEDURE. — The procedure followed by respondent judge in hearing and deciding the case was not in accord with the procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court. The pertinent section of the Rules of Court could not be more specific: Sec. 2. Agreed statement of facts. — The parties to any action may agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and require judgment of the court upon the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence. If the parties can agree only on some of the facts in issue, trial shall be held as to the others. [Rule 30; Emphasis supplied]

2. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; WILL NOT LIE WHERE APPEAL IS AVAILABLE. — A more fitting factual backdrop that would call for the reiteration of the rule that essential to the issuance of the writ of certiorari is that there be no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available to the petitioner [Rule 65, Sec. 1] could not be found. In this case, the exigency requisite to the issuance of the writ does not obtain. The remedy of appeal is available, as in fact an appeal was filed by petitioners in the Court of Appeals.

3. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; FORUM SHOPPING AND TRIFLING WITH THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT; PENALTY. — This Court frowns upon petitioners’ omission in not disclosing to the Court that an appeal had been filed in and was pending before the Court of Appeals. Information on the existence and status of the appeal only came out in respondent judge’s rejoinder. Thereafter, unable to deny its existence, petitioners reasoned out "that the present civil action has not become moot and academic by said appeal because the appeal is still pending before the Court of Appeals and a long way to termination of the same including possible appeal from said court to this Court. On the contrary, the grant of the writ of certiorari prayed for in the present special civil action would render moot and academic the aforesaid appeal." This is a classic case of forum-shopping which this Court definitely cannot and will not countenance. What aggravates petitioners’ case is that they chose to trifle with the highest court of the land. The petition is hereby dismissed. Counsel for petitioners, Atty. Paterno Aquino, is ADMONISHED for forum-shopping and trifling with the jurisdiction of this Court. He is warned that any further misconduct will be dealt with more severely.


D E C I S I O N


CORTES, J.:


At the outset, it must be emphasized that the facts are in dispute and, thus, a trial should have been conducted by respondent judge to ascertain the true facts. A finding of grave abuse of discretion is therefore inevitable. But for reasons to be stated later, this Court is constrained to hold that, under the circumstances, the writ of certiorari shall not issue.

From the record, the following may be deduced.

On January 16, 1976, petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership against private respondents, alleging that they were the owners of a parcel of residential land situated in Bangued, Abra described and declared under Tax Declaration No. 23174 in the name of petitioner Romualda Mailed Collado, petitioners having purchased the same from Bonifacia Collado on March 20, 1952 and since then had been in the possession of the land until November 1975, when private respondents spouses Go occupied the same.

In their answer, private respondents claimed that the land formerly belonged to Maria Barreras who sold it in 1942 to respondents-spouses Brillantes who since then took possession thereof until November 1975 when they sold the land to the spouses Go.

Following a pre-trial conference, respondent judge issued a pre-trial order dated March 17, 1976, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, as prayed for by Atty. Agripino Brillantes and in behalf of his co-defendants, they are hereby given a period of 15 days from today to submit their documentary evidence in support of their defense and Atty. Paterno Aquino for the plaintiffs is likewise given a period of 15 days from today to submit their additional documentary any evidence, after which, with or without said documentary evidence, the pre-trial conference is closed and terminated and that the parties by representation of their respective counsels finally agreed to submit the case for decision, hence, this Court, thereafter, shall consider the same submitted for decision. [Rollo, p. 17]

Said order also stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

This court therefore ordered the parties to agree on some undisputed facts already appearing in their pleadings and they agreed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That the parties have the capacity to sue and be sued;

2. That the parties agreed that the property in question is a residential land located in the poblacion of Bangued, Abra, bounded on the north by Maura Felisco; on the east by National Road; on the south by Federico Villamor before but now Benjamin Aznar; and on the west by Wencesla Valera de Banez according to the plaintiffs, and Presentacion Bersamin according to the defendants;

3. That the approximate area of the residential lot in question is, according to the plaintiff, 207 square meters, while according to the defendants, it is 300 sq. meters, more or less;

4. That the party who will lost (sic) in this case shall pay for attorney’s fees in the amount of P1,000.00 to the winning party. [Rollo, pp. 13-14.]

x       x       x


This court further inquired from the plaintiffs, thru counsel, Atty. Paterno Aquino, if what is (sic) the subject matter of the oral evidence they would intend to present in this case and Atty. Aquino stated that the land in question originally belonged to Andres Collado, now deceased, who had been in actual, open, public, continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful and adverse possession in the concept of owner for a period of more than 30 years including the possession of his predecessor in interest; that after the death of Andres Collado, the property was inherited by Bonifacia Collado who continued the possession in the same manner as that of Andres Collado in the concept of owner; that in 1952, said Bonifacia Collado executed a deed of sale in favor of the spouses Petronio Collado and Romualda B. Mailed covering the land in suit . . . that since the time of the purchase up to the present, they have been in actual, peaceful, continuous and adverse possession of the land in question in the concept of absolute owner and that they have paid the realty taxes . . .

. . . This court likewise asked the defendants, thru Atty. Brillantes, the nature or subject matter of their oral evidence and he informed the court as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That the property in question formerly belonged to Maria Barreras having been in possession of the property for more that 20 years before 1942; that the same Maria Barreras sold the said property to the spouses Atty. and Mrs. Agripino Brillantes; that the document of sale was notarized by the late Atty. Abraham Cardenas and it was duly registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Abra but all public records were burned during the bombing of the town of Bangued on March 10, 1945 so that said document is not now available; that the vendees Agripino Brillantes and Juliana Balmaceda-Brillantes occupied the property physically by allowing Julia Bigornia and Jose Bambilla to stay on the lot until it was sold to the herein defendants Juanito F. Go and May Valera-Go on October 1, 1975; that after the property was sold to the defendants Mr. and Mrs. Juanito F. Go, the house of Jose Bambilla and Julia Bigornia was removed and another house of strong materials was construed by defendants Mr. and Mrs. Juanito F. Go valued at P110,000.00 but is still incomplete; that the lot in question has been mortgaged by the defendants Mr. and Mrs. Juanito F. Go with the Development Bank of the Philippines in the amount of P44,000.00; that Andres Collado and Maria Barreras were common-law husband and wife as they were not legally married and that Bonifacia Collado never occupied the property because she had not been in Bangued for a long time now but defendant Agripino Brillantes was informed that said Bonifacia Collado is presently in Manila. [Rollo, pp. 14-16; Emphasis supplied].

On April 21, 1976, the trial court rendered judgment, without trial on the merits, dismissing the complaint on the basis of the documentary evidence submitted for marking and the manifestation of the parties’ respective counsels as to what they intend to prove through the oral evidence they will present.

On April 30, 1976, petitioner filed in the trial court a "Motion for Modification of Order and To Set Aside Judgment" alleging that their counsel made no representation agreeing to consider the case submitted for decision. The court denied the motion in an order dated May 14, 1976 for lack of interest to prosecute the same as petitioners and their counsel failed to appear during the hearing on the motion. Petitioners moved to reconsider the order but the same was denied.

Hence, petitioners filed the instant special civil action for certiorari with this Court to annul the pre-trial order dated March 17, 1976 issued by respondent judge as well as his decision dated April 21, 1976, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

In a resolution dated June 2, 1976, the Court commented that it was "not inclined to sanction the rendition of a judgment based on nothing more than mere representations of the parties of what they intend to prove, without actually presenting their oral evidence, particularly where, as in the instant case, it is evident that their factual theories contradict each other." [Rollo, p. 45]. This observation was reiterated by the Court in resolutions dated August 4, 1976 [Rollo, p. 56] and October 6, 1976 [Rollo, p. 76].

Subsequently, in his rejoinder received by the Court on August 25, 1976, respondent judge manifested to the Court that petitioners had appealed his decision to the Court of Appeals [Rollo, pp. 58-65-]. This fact was not disclosed by petitioners in their petition. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 59738-R.

After petitioners waived their right to file a memorandum, private respondents adopted respondent Judge’s rejoinder as their memorandum and respondent judge filed his memorandum, the case was submitted for decision on February 7, 1977.

In the meantime, the Court of Appeals had been regularly inquiring from this Tribunal about the status of the instant case [Rollo, p. 90, et seq.]

There is no dispute that the procedure followed by respondent judge in hearing and deciding the case was not in accord with the procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court. The pertinent section of the Rules of Court could not be more specific:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Sec. 2. Agreed statement of facts. — The parties to any action may agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and require judgment of the court upon the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence.

If the parties can agree only on some of the facts in issue, trial shall be held as to the others. [Rule 30; Emphasis supplied]

As the parties have already agreed on some facts, trial should have been held on the disputed factual issues. Respondent judge, however, adopted a procedure not sanctioned by the Rules of Court. In lieu of hearing the testimonies of the witnesses of the parties on the disputed facts, he proceeded to render a decision on the basis of the documentary evidence submitted by the parties for marking as exhibits and their respective counsel’s manifestation regarding the gist of the testimonial evidence they intend to introduce during the trial. The exhibits have not yet even been formally offered, much less admitted in evidence. Thus, they could not be considered by the court [Rule 132, Sec. 35].

However, in spite of the irregularity of the procedure followed by respondent judge, this Court holds that the issuance of the writ of certiorari is not proper.

A more fitting factual backdrop that would call for the reiteration of the rule that essential to the issuance of the writ of certiorari is that there be no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available to the petitioner [Rule 65, Sec. 1] could not be found. In this case, the exigency requisite to the issuance of the writ does not obtain. The remedy of appeal is available, as in fact an appeal was filed by petitioners in the Court of Appeals.

Perhaps this is the reason for petitioners’ failure to state in their petition the jurisdictional allegation that "there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."cralaw virtua1aw library

This Court frowns upon petitioners’ omission in not disclosing to the Court that an appeal had been filed in and was pending before the Court of Appeals. Information on the existence and status of the appeal only came out in respondent judge’s rejoinder. Thereafter, unable to deny its existence, petitioners reasoned out "that the present civil action has not become moot and academic by said appeal because the appeal is still pending before the Court of Appeals and a long way to termination of the same including possible appeal from said court to this Court. On the contrary, the grant of the writ of certiorari prayed for in the present special civil action would render moot and academic the aforesaid appeal." [Rollo, p. 71]. This is a classic case of forum-shopping which this Court definitely cannot and will not countenance. What aggravates petitioners’ case is that they chose to trifle with the highest court of the land.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. Counsel for petitioners, Atty. Paterno Aquino, is ADMONISHED for forum-shopping and trifling with the jurisdiction of this Court. He is WARNED that any further misconduct will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this decision be appended to the record of Atty. Aquino.

Respondent judge is REMINDED to comply faithfully with the procedure provided in the Rules of Court. Let a copy of this decision be appended to his record.

As the appeal in CA-G.R. No. 59738-R is pending in the Court of Appeals, and said Court has desisted from acting on the case before it pending disposition of the case by this Tribunal, let a copy of this Decision be immediately sent to the Court of Appeals to enable said Court to dispose of the case with deliberate dispatch.

Treble costs against petitioners.

This decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano and Bidin,, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





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.