Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > November 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-69550 November 24, 1988 - MARIA LUISA O. COJUANGCO, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-69550. November 24, 1988.]

MARIA LUISA O. COJUANGCO, and LEO J. PALMA, Petitioners, v. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH XXVII, PASAY CITY AND SPOUSES EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., AND SOLEDAD O. COJUANGCO, Respondents.

Rayala, Estrada & Associates Law Offices, for Petitioners.

Angara, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Offices for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; REFUSAL TO DISMISS A CASE FOLLOWING A RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT, NOT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — The main issue in this case is whether or not respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to want of jurisdiction, in refusing to dismiss the case in the lower court. A careful perusal of the records shows that such refusal by respondent Judge was in obedience to the resolution of the First Division of this Court of December 21, 1983 in G.R. No. 64538 entitled "Leo Palma v. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., Et. Al.", specifically ordering respondent Judge to conduct a new trial in the case below and to allow petitioner to file his answer. Unquestionably, respondent Judge cannot be faulted for following the resolution of this Court.

2. ID.; SUPREME COURT; AS A RULE, DOES NOT ENTERTAIN PETITION QUESTIONING THE PROPRIETY OF AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. — The Court, in general does not entertain a petition for certiorari questioning the propriety of an interlocutory order (De Midgely v. Fernando, 64 SCRA 23 [1975]; Malit v. People, 114 SCRA 349 [1982]) unless grave abuse of discretion was patently committed by the trial court (Bernabe v. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., 78 SCRA 341 [1977]; Villalon v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 144 SCRA 443 [1986]) or where broader interests of justice require exception.

3. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; ORDER DENYING A MOTION TO DISMISS, BEING AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER, CANNOT BE SUBJECT THEREOF. — An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari (Occena v. Jabson, 73 SCRA 637 [1976]; Gamboa v. Victoriano, 90 SCRA 40 [1979]; Bautista v. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587 [1985]; Cruz v. People, 144 SCRA 677 [1986]) unless in denying the motion to dismiss or motion to quash, the court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; in which case certiorari or prohibition lies (Newsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 142 SCRA 17 [1986]).

4. ID.; ACTIONS; APPEAL, PROPER RECOURSE TO ASSAIL ERRORS COMMITTED BY A JUDGE IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS JURISDICTION; CERTIORARI, NOT AVAILABLE. — In the exercise of his jurisdiction, errors allegedly committed by respondent Judge may be corrected by a timely appeal and not by a special civil action of certiorari (Santos v. C.A., 152 SCRA 378 [1987]).


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction seeking: (1) to annul and set aside: (a) the Order dated August 17, 1984 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, now Regional Trial Court, Branch XXVII, Pasay City, which reconsidered and set aside its Order of July 19, 1984 dismissing Civil Case No. Pq-0401-P, an action for declaration of nullity of marriage, entitled Maria Luisa O. Cojuangco Et. Al. v. Leo J. Palma and reinstating the same and (b) the Order dated December 10, 1984 denying the Joint Motion for Reconsideration of aforesaid resolution; and (2) to prohibit respondent Judge from proceeding with Case No. Pq-0401-P.

The decretal portion of the aforementioned order of August 17, 1984, reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Order of July 19, 1984, is hereby reconsidered and set aside the instant case reinstated.

By reason of and pursuant to the order of the Honorable Court dated December 21, 1983, defendant is hereby granted a period of fifteen (15) days from notice hereof within which to file his answer to the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED." (Annex I, p. 42, Rollo)

while the dispositive portion of the subsequent order dated December 10, 1984, reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Acting on the joint motion for reconsideration dated September 4, 1984, which seeks to set aside the Order of this Court dated August 17, 1984 reinstating the instant case, and considering the arguments raised therein as well as the opposition filed thereto, the court resolves to deny the aforesaid `joint Motion for Reconsideration’ for lack of merit.

IT IS SO ORDERED." (Annex N, p. 72, Rollo)

This case is related to and is an incident of G.R. No. 64538 entitled "Leo Palma v. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr. Et. Al." which was resolved by the First Division of this Court per resolution dated December 21, 1983, the pertinent portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Upon consideration of the averments and arguments adduced in the petition, respondent’s comment, petitioners’ reply and respondent’s rejoinder and the documents annexed thereto, the Court Resolved to GRANT the petition and as prayed for, to ORDER respondent judge to conduct a new trial in the case below and to allow petitioner to file his answer, which answer should be filed within ten (10) days from finality of this Resolution. The records show that respondent Judge acted with undue haste in declaring petitioner in default on the complaint filed on August 24, 1982 and in rendering his ex parte decision of November 2, 1982, as well as in refusing to give due course to the timely appeal filed by petitioner and instead ordering the execution of the judgment.

"On the disallowance of the appeal, respondent judge relied on the inapplicable case of Strachan & Macmurray, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals (62 SCRA 109) (re default in municipal courts under Rule 5, section 13), when under Rule 41, section 2, which is the rule applicable to default cases in courts of first instance (now regional trial courts), ‘(A) party who has been declared in default may likewise appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law, even if no petition for relief to set aside the order of default has been presented by him in accordance with Rule 38’. But more decisively, and even though not raised in the petition but taken cognizance of by the Court since it involves a matter of jurisdiction and authority, Rule 18, section 6 expressly mandates that there can be no defaults in actions for annulments of marriage and provides that `(I)f the defendant in an action for annulment of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence is not fabricated.’

"Considering further that in petitioner’s reply, he states that in a letter of the principal plaintiff, Maria Luisa O. Cojuangco, dated September, 1982 addressed to respondent’s counsel (Annex T, petition), she expressed her desire not to take part in the case, the ends of justice will be subserved by setting aside the judgment of November 2, 1982 and the subsequent implementing orders of January 17, 1983 and June 6, 1983 and remanding the case to respondent judge’s court for proper proceeding and determination." (Rollo, G.R No. 64538, pp. 163-164)

and the resolution of May 28, 1984 denying the motion for reconsideration of aforesaid resolution.

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

On August 24, 1982, an action for declaration of nullity of marriage between Leo J. Palma and Maria Luisa O. Cojuangco (hereinafter referred to as petitioners) was filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, now Regional Trial Court Branch XXVII, Pasay City, docketed as Civil Case No. Pq-0401-P by Maria Luisa O. Cojuangco and Spouses Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. and Soledad O. Cojuangco (spouses Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. and Soledad O. Cojuangco). The complaint alleged that Maria Luisa O. Cojuangco is 22 years of age, single and daughter of private respondents, Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. and Soledad O. Cojuangco, while defendant Leo J. Palma, is a lawyer, 35 years of age and married to Elizabeth H. Palma with whom he contracted marriage on December 19, 1971 at Cebu City and with whom he has been continuously cohabiting, thereby begetting three (3) children by her, namely: Eugene Philip, born on March 23, 1973, Elias Anton, born on February 16, 1975 and Eduardo Lorenzo, born on September 18, 1976. The complaint further alleged that Palma, who was for sometime a member of the law firm of Angara, Concepcion, Regala, and Cruz Law Offices ("ACCRA") was offered by private respondent Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. to be his own personal and confidential counsel and that of his family and companies wholly owned by him, which was promptly accepted by the petitioner Palma; that he became so close with the family of the private respondents and was requested to tutor petitioner Maria Luisa O. Cojuangco, who was then a student at the Assumption College; that with grave abuse and betrayal of trust and confidence reposed in him and with his moral and intellectual ascendancy over Maria Luisa O. Cojuangco, he succeeded in courting and contracting a second marriage with her on June 22, 1982 by falsely representing to the Hongkong authorities that he is a "bachelor." Consequently, the marriage between Leo Palma and Maria Luisa O. Cojuangco, is null and void for being bigamous and or contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy. Complainants (herein private respondents) prayed that judgment be rendered declaring the marriage null and void ab initio and ordering petitioner Palma to pay private respondents reasonable amounts as moral, nominal and exemplary damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation as may be proved in the course of the trial.

On September 27, 1982, apparently because she wanted to continue her marital union, Maria Luisa O. Cojuangco sought the immediate dismissal of the aforecited case and wrote petitioner’s counsel, seeking the dismissal of the said case. On the same date, respondent Judge issued an order granting Leo J. Palma three (3) days ending on September 30, 1982 within which to file his answer to the complaint itself. (Rollo, G.R. No. 64538, p. 3).

On October 5, 1982, Palma was declared in default (Ibid).

On October 13, 1982, Palma prayed for reconsideration of the order declaring him in default, and a last extension of fifteen (15) days from October 10, 1982 within which to file a responsive pleading to the complaint (Ibid., p. 3).

On October 25, 1982, Maria Luisa filed a Motion to Dismiss which apparently was not acted upon by respondent Judge. Instead, an Order was issued on the same date denying Palma’s motion for reconsideration (Ibid).

On November 2, 1982, the lower court issued a decision declaring the marriage of herein petitioner on June 22, 1982 as null and void ab initio, while on February 18, 1983, Palma’s motion for reconsideration (of aforesaid decision) with motion to lift order of default was denied.

Hence, the petition for Certiorari, Mandamus With Preliminary Injunction, filed in G.R. No. 64538.

On December 21, 1983, the First Division of this Court issued the aforequoted resolution setting aside the judgment of November 2, 1982 of the lower court.

In the lower court, a notice of dismissal dated July 13, 1984 was filed by petitioner Maria Luisa O. Cojuangco affirming her avowal of not being a part of the case and of her desire for its dismissal with prejudice. Meanwhile, Palma filed a Motion and Rejoinder to Notice of Dismissal with Reservation to File Responsive Pleading after receipt of resolution dated July 18, 1984. Accordingly, on July 19, 1984, an order was issued by the lower court dismissing Civil Case No. Pq-0401-P with prejudice.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Thereafter, on August 14, 1984, the parents of Maria Luisa filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal dated July 19, 1984 alleging among others, that the notice of dismissal of July 13, 1984 is of doubtful authenticity and or source and that said parents had not been given a day in court; that the aforementioned order runs counter to the resolution of the court directing that a new trial be conducted.

On August 17, 1984, Palma filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration. On the same day, August 17, 1984, an order was issued granting the motion for reconsideration, setting aside the order of July 19, 1984.

On September 5, 1984, petitioners Maria O. Cojuangco and Leo Palma, filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration of the order of August 17, 1984 which was denied for lack of merit in the order of December 10, 1984.

Hence, this petition.

In the resolution of January 21, 1985, this Court required respondents to file their answer to the petition (Rollo, p. 33), which answer was filed on March 1, 1985 (Rollo, p. 83).

In the resolution of March 18, 1985, this Court required petitioners to file their reply (Rollo, p. 107), which was filed on May 13, 1985. In compliance with the resolution of July 10, 1985 (Rollo, p. 133), petitioners filed their memorandum on September 5, 1985 (Rollo, p. 134), while private respondents filed their memorandum on October 18, 1985 (Rollo, p. 148).

In their petition, petitioners raised the following grounds to support petition:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE CASE AND THE ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

II


THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO WANT OF JURISDICTION. (p. 7, Rollo).

The main issue in this case is whether or not respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to want of jurisdiction, in refusing to dismiss the case in the lower court.

A careful perusal of the records shows that such refusal by respondent Judge was in obedience to the resolution of the First Division of this Court of December 21, 1983 in G.R. No. 64538 entitled "Leo Palma v. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., Et. Al.", specifically ordering respondent Judge to conduct a new trial in the case below and to allow petitioner to file his answer.

On the other hand, Palma not only failed to file an answer within ten (10) days as required in aforesaid resolution, but insisted instead on the dismissal of subject case, on grounds already considered by this Court before the issuance of said resolution. Such action of the petitioner is obviously a disobedience to, if not a blatant defiance of this Court’s Order, or at the very least, it is a bid to delay the disposition of this case on the merits. Failing to achieve his objective in the lower court, Palma now elevated the matter to the Supreme Court on Certiorari and Prohibition without first complying with the requirements of aforesaid resolution of December 21, 1983.cralawnad

Moreover, the Court, in general does not entertain a petition for certiorari questioning the propriety of an interlocutory order (De Midgely v. Fernando, 64 SCRA 23 [1975]; Malit v. People, 114 SCRA 349 [1982]) unless grave abuse of discretion was patently committed by the trial court (Bernabe v. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., 78 SCRA 341 [1977]; Villalon v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 144 SCRA 443 [1986]) or where broader interests of justice require exception. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari (Occena v. Jabson, 73 SCRA 637 [1976]; Gamboa v. Victoriano, 90 SCRA 40 [1979]; Bautista v. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587 [1985]; Cruz v. People, 144 SCRA 677 [1986]) unless in denying the motion to dismiss or motion to quash, the court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; in which case certiorari or prohibition lies (Newsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 142 SCRA 17 [1986]).

Unquestionably, respondent Judge cannot be faulted for following the resolution of this Court. In the exercise of his jurisdiction, errors allegedly committed by respondent Judge may be corrected by a timely appeal and not by a special civil action of certiorari (Santos v. C.A., 152 SCRA 378 [1987]).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The case is thus hereby REMANDED to the respondent trial court for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-37010 November 7, 1988 - JESUS MANAHAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-56464 November 7, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIANO MALMIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48278 November 7, 1988 - AURORA TAMBUNTING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51806 November 8, 1988 - CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53798 November 8, 1988 - ALBERTO C. ROXAS, ET AL. v. MARINA BUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55230 November 8, 1988 - RICHARD J. GORDON v. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69778 November 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO TABAGO

  • G.R. No. L-74051 November 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO RELLON

  • G.R. No. 75583 November 8, 1988 - GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION v. ANTONIO J. TEODORO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77028 November 8, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77109 November 8, 1988 - ESTATE OF EUGENE J. KNEEBONE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77115 November 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO L. BANTAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78052 November 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO E. ROA

  • G.R. No. L-35434 November 9, 1988 - ISRAEL ANTONIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-62386 November 9, 1988 - BATANGAS-I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE LABOR UNION v. ROMEO A. YOUNG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62680 November 9, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-63074-75 November 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRU LAPATHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 70565-67 November 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT POCULAN

  • G.R. No. 70766 November 9, 1988 - AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72383 November 9, 1988 - MARCELO SORIANO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73304 November 9, 1988 - GLORIA DELA CRUZ VDA. DE NABONG v. QUIRINO R. SADANG

  • G.R. No. 75433 November 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN P. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76026 November 9, 1988 - PORFIRIO JOPILLO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76565 November 9, 1988 - BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORPORATION v. EDILBERTO NOEL

  • G.R. No. 81948 November 9, 1988 - PAN-FIL CO., INC. v. GABRIEL I. AGUJAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70270 November 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO B. TURLA

  • G.R. Nos. 74297 & 74351 November 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR S. CARIÑO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 80485 November 11, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29420 November 14, 1988 - FELIX DE VILLA v. JOSE JACOB

  • G.R. No. L-33084 November 14, 1988 - ROSE PACKING COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38907 November 14, 1988 - NERIO BELVIS III v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39807 November 14, 1988 - HEIRS OF E. B. ROXAS, INC., ET AL. v. MACARIO TOLENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46474 November 14, 1988 - CONCORDIA M. DE LEON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-61017-18 January 14, 1988 - FELIPE FAJELGA v. ROMEO M. ESCAREAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73828 November 14, 1988 - BENJAMIN S. APRIETO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73998 November 14, 1988 - PEDRO T. LAYUGAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74387-90 November 14, 1988 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78848 November 14, 1988 - SHERMAN SHAFER v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OLONGAPO CITY, BRANCH 75, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82585 November 14, 1988 - MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, ET AL. v. RAMON P. MAKASIAR

  • G.R. No. 74324 November 17, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PUGAY BALCITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74834 November 17, 1988 - INSULAR BANK OF ASIA & AMERICA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32242 November 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO T. CARIDO

  • G.R. No. L-64656 November 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 76974 November 18, 1988 - BENITO LIM v. RODOLFO D. RODRIGO

  • G.R. No. L-68857 November 21, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANACLETO M. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. 78794 November 21, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ELIZAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47045 November 22, 1988 - NOBIO SARDANE v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71110 November 22, 1988 - PAZ VILLAGONZALO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77860 November 22, 1988 - BOMAN ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31440 November 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BANDOQUILLO

  • G.R. No. L-37048 November 23, 1988 - NICOLAS LAURENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47726 November 23, 1988 - PAN REALTY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48302 November 23, 1988 - ARTURO DEL POZO, ET AL. v. ALFONSO PENACO

  • G.R. No. L-51996 November 23, 1988 - WESTERN MINOLCO CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-57005-07 November 23, 1988 - IMPERIAL VEGETABLE WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN A. VEGA

  • G.R. No. L-61375 November 23, 1988 - TRINIDAD S. ESTONINA v. SOUTHERN MARKETING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-65037 November 23, 1988 - CRESENCIO M. ROCAMORA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU BRANCH VIII, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75364 November 23, 1988 - ANTONIO LAYUG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76290 November 23, 1988 - MAMITA PARDO DE TAVERA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO A. CACDAC, JR.

  • G.R. No. 77968 November 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO MARAVILLA, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 78359-60 November 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DESIDERIO G. ALIOCOD, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-89-P November 24, 1988 - DOMINGA S. CUNANAN v. JOSE L. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-34116 November 24, 1988 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36788 November 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO LUARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38884 November 24, 1988 - SEVERINO MATEO v. ANDRES PLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46078 November 24, 1988 - ROMEO N. PORTUGAL, ET AL. v. RODRIGO R. REANTASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45266 November 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO PARDILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55960 November 24, 1988 - YAO KEE, ET AL. v. AIDA SY-GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69550 November 24, 1988 - MARIA LUISA O. COJUANGCO, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75755 November 24, 1988 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEV’T. CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76835 November 24, 1988 - LUIS M. FUENTES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77976 November 24, 1988 - MAXIMO GABRITO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78061 November 24, 1988 - LITTON MILLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-KAPATIRAN, ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA

  • G.R. Nos. 82282-83 November 24, 1988 - ANTONIO M. GARCIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82405-06 November 24, 1988 - BANQUE DE L’ INDOCHINE ET DE SUEZ, ET AL. v. RAMON AM. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 84610 November 24, 1988 - MEDCO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41014 November 28, 1988 - PACIFIC BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-59981 November 28, 1988 - SALVADOR SAPUGAY v. NATIVIDAD C. BOBIS

  • G.R. No. L-69970 November 28, 1988 - FELIX DANGUILAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 79677 November 28, 1988 - PEOPLE v. VICTOR MEJIAS

  • G.R. No. L-34548 November 29, 1988 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. PACIFICO P. DE CASTRO

  • G.R. No. L-34836 November 29, 1989

    LINDA TARUC v. VICENTE G. ERICTA

  • G.R. No. L-46048 November 29, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-46612 November 29, 1988 - SILVERIO GODOY v. NIÑO T. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-48457 November 29, 1988 - PERLA HERNANDEZ v. PEDRO C. QUITAIN

  • G.R. No. L-48974 November 29, 1989

    FRANCISCO MASCARIÑA v. EASTERN QUEZON COLLEGE

  • G.R. No. L-55233 November 29, 1988 - CRISPULO GAROL v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-67229 November 29, 1988 - MARCELINO MEJIA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-69870 November 29, 1988 - NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71557 November 29, 1988 - PABLO S. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 72006 November 29, 1988 - FLORENCIO REYES, JR. v. LEONARDO M. RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 73421 November 29, 1988 - GROUP DEVELOPERS AND FINANCIERS, INC. v. LUMEN POLICARPIO

  • G.R. No. 74049 November 29, 1988 - MACARIO Q. FALCON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75042 November 29, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 77040 November 29, 1988 - ALEJANDRO MAGTIBAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77227 November 29, 1988 - COMMANDER REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 77395 November 29, 1988 - BELYCA CORP. v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 77541 November 29, 1988 - HEIRS OF GREGORIO TENGCO v. HEIRS OF JOSE ALIWALAS

  • G.R. No. 78012 November 29, 1988 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79552 November 29, 1988 - EVELYN J. SANGRADOR v. SPOUSES FRANCISCO VALDERRAMA

  • G.R. No. 80382 November 29, 1988 - DIONISIA ANTALLAN v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 80838 November 29, 1988 - ELEUTERIO C. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS