Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > September 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-81760 September 29, 1988 - EDGARDO L. STO. DOMINGO v. SEDFREY A. ORDOÑEZ, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-81760. September 29, 1988.]

EDGARDO L. STO. DOMINGO, Petitioner, v. HON. SEDFREY A. ORDOÑEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of Justice; MANUEL B. GAITE, in his capacity as Representative of the Executive Secretary; EUFEMIO C. DOMINGO, in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission on Audit; VIRGILIO A. IFURUNG, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Legal and Legislative Affairs; ALFREDO B. PEZA, in his capacity as Executive Director of the Civil Service Commission; HONESTO U. BONNEVIE, in his capacity as Senior Special Assistant on Government Reorganization; PEDRITO NEPOMUCENO, in his capacity as OIC Mayor of Boac, Marinduque, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION; PUBLIC OFFICIALS; REMOVAL FROM THE SERVICE; EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 17 PROVIDES SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS; FORMAL HEARING AND EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES NOT ALLOWED BY RULES AND REGULATIONS. — Executive Order No. 17 in implementing Section 2 of the Provisional Constitution outlines the rules and procedures to be followed before an employee can be separated from government service. — Specifically, Section 7 provides that the proceedings shall be summary in nature. Pursuant to this provision, the Review Committee promulgated its own rules and regulations, Section 5 of which states that "No formal hearing can be conducted nor shall examination of witnesses be allowed."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; BILL OF RIGHTS; DUE PROCESS; TRIAL TYPE HEARINGS IN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS ARE NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY; SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT PER SE VIOLATIONS OF RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. — The petitioner contends that his right to cross-examine the witnesses against him is a requirement of due process. Trial type hearings in administrative investigations are not always necessary. Summary proceedings are not per se violations of the principle of due process. The summary procedures found in Section 40 of Presidential Decree No. 807, the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines may be cited in this regard.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUMMARY DISMISSAL; NOT VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; VITAL IS THE EXERCISE OF SOUND DISCRETION OF DEPARTMENT HEAD IN SUMMARILY REMOVING SUBORDINATE. — In the case of In re: Apolinar Flores (65 SCRA 528, [1975]), this Court upheld the dismissal of a deputy sheriff who claimed that he was not accorded due process. The Court ruled that what is of ultimate importance is whether or not the Department Head exercised his sound discretion in summarily removing Mr. Flores from the service because of wrongful acts . . . or whether he was separated from the service purely on the mere whim or caprice of the Secretary of Justice.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, DISCIPLINARY ACTION IS JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE BEFORE INVESTIGATING BODY. — Summary procedures were similarly sustained in Ganaden v. Bolasco (64 SCRA 50 [1975]) and Taga-an v. Roa (72 SCRA 466, [1976]). In the latter case, the Court distinguished between criminal proceedings where proof beyond reasonable doubt is essential and administrative proceedings where disciplinary action is justified on the basis of the evidence before the investigating body showing clearly that the grounds for removal are substantiated.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SUSTAINED WHEN CHARGE IS SERIOUS AND EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG. — In Marcelo v. Tantuico (142 SCRA 439 [1986]), the summary dismissal of an employee without necessity of a formal investigation when the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is strong was again sustained.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; FUNDAMENTAL RULE IS THE OPPORTUNITIES TO BE HEARD. — Likewise, in the case of Gonzales v. Honorable Secretary of Labor, (116 SCRA 573, 581 [1982]) cited the case of Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Philippine Labor Union, where the court said: When the Court of Industrial Relations refers a case to a commissioner for investigation, report and recommendation, and at such investigation the parties are duly represented by counsel, heard or at least given an opportunity to be heard, the requirements of due process has been satisfied even if the Court failed to set the report for hearing and a decision on the basis of such report, with the other evidence of the case, is a decision which meets the requirements of a fair and open hearing. Necessarily, the fundamental rule in the principle of due process is the opportunity to be heard. (See also Fariscal vda. de Emnas v. Emnas, 95 SCRA 470; Cornejo v. Secretary of Justice, 57 SCRA 663; Bermejo v. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764.)

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, the petitioner was heard on his petition for reconsideration filed with the Review Committee. He was accorded every opportunity to present evidence in his behalf. The charges against him are easily refuted with documentary evidence regarding the completion of the project and his having attended the seminar at Tagaytay City. There is absolutely no evidence of arbitrariness or caprice in the questioned act of the respondents. Hence, he cannot claim that he was deprived of his right to due process of law. (See Sumadchat v. Court of Appeals, 111 SCRA 488).

8. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; POWER OFF APPOINTMENT; POWER TO REMOVE INHERENT IN THE POWER TO APPOINT; A MAYOR HAS DISCIPLINARY JURISDICTION OVER LOCAL EMPLOYEE. — Article 161 of the Local Government Code provides that the "municipal planning and development coordinator shall be appointed by the Municipal Mayor . . ." This makes the petitioner a local employee and therefore, subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the mayor. Under section 78 of the Local Government Code, the mayor has the authority to remove, suspend and discipline his appointees pursuant to law. The general rule is that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint. (See Lacson v. Romero, 84 Phil. 740 [1949]; Bagatsing v. Herrera, 65 SCRA 434 [1975]). There appears to be no abuse by the Mayor of his power to discipline. There are valid grounds to terminate the petitioner’s employment.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


The petitioner seeks the reversal of the resolution of the Review Committee established under Executive Order No. 17 in relation to section 2, Article III of the Provisional Constitution which affirmed his dismissal as municipal planning development coordinator of Boac, Marinduque effected by respondent OIC Mayor Pedrito M. Nepomuceno.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Petitioner Edgardo L. Sto. Domingo, a civil service eligible, was the municipal planning and development officer of Boac, Marinduque holding a permanent position until his employment was terminated by respondent OIC Mayor Pedrito Nepomuceno pursuant to section 3 of Executive Order No. 17 dated May 28, 1986. In this notice of termination dated November 24, 1986 addressed to Sto. Domingo, it was stated therein:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Effective upon receipt of this notice, your services as Municipal Development and Planning Coordinator of this municipality is (sic) hereby terminated.

"Your separation from the service is pursuant to the grounds for separation and replacement of personnel as provided in Section 3 of Executive Order No. 17 dated May 28, 1986. Among these are:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘1. Existence of a probable cause for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the findings of the Commission on Audit (Supplemental CSB No. 02-02-85, dated July 17, 1985 and CSB No. 86-001-101 dated October 16, 1986) pinpointing you as one of the persons liable and which therefore necessitates the suspension and disallowances of the amount of P726,863.79 relative to the renovation of the Boac Municipal Building.

2. Existence of a case for summary dismissal pursuant to Section 40 of the Civil Service Law for issuing a CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION AND COMPLETION of the Construction of the Boac Municipal Building knowing fully well that said construction was not complete and not made in accordance with the plans and specification; furthermore you have admitted your guilt relative to this matter before the Sangguniang Bayan Members during their regular session on June 25, 1986.

3. Gross negligence and uncooperative character in the discharge of official functions.’"

With the above grounds for separation and replacement, you are therefore deemed unfit to remain in public office for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

You may, however, avail of your right to petition for reconsideration which you may file within 10 days with the Committee for Reconsideration as provided for in Section 6 of Executive Order No. 17." (Rollo, p. 20)

In reply to the notice of termination, the petitioner through counsel Manuel S. Laurel wrote respondent OIC Mayor alleging that "there is absolutely no written specification of charges that has been served upon him for any charge or charges whatsoever, that he has not been afforded the opportunity to answer said charge or charges, if any; that he has not been afforded the opportunity to examine the documents that have been used as basis for any charge or charges against him, if any; that he has not been afforded the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witnesses who testified against him, if any; that he has not been afforded the opportunity to defend himself before you summarily and you arbitrarily terminated his services." (Rollo, p. 21) In short, the petitioner averred that his employment was terminated without due process of law. Hence, in this same letter, the petitioner demanded that he be furnished "with a written specification of the charge or charges" in order to afford him the opportunity to defend himself.

In addition, the petitioner filed a letter-petition for reconsideration with the Civil Service Commission which the latter transmitted to the Review Committee under Executive Order No. 17, Department of Justice.

The Review Committee required him to file a sworn petition for reconsideration including such documents he might deem necessary to support his petition. On March 24, 1987, the Review Committee received the petitioner’s verified petition for reconsideration with attached documents.

In a Resolution dated May 15, 1987, the Review Committee dismissed the petition for reconsideration for lack of merit.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The petitioner then filed a motion for leave to cross-examine witnesses which was, however, denied by the Review Committee on the ground that under section 5 of the rules of procedure of respondent Review Committee "No formal hearing shall be conducted nor shall examination of witnesses be allowed."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioner now questions the validity of section 5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Review Committee erroneously stated in the petition as section 5 of Executive Order No. 17 on the ground that it is violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. He also questions the Review Committee’s Resolution dated May 15, 1987 which he contends affirmed the OIC-Mayor’s termination of his services based solely on the notice of termination issued by the latter.

The resolution of this case actually revolves on whether or not the petitioner was dismissed from his office in violation of his right to due process of law and on whether or not the OIC Mayor had the authority to dismiss him.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Section 2 of the Provisional Constitution dated March 25, 1986 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"All elective and appointive officials and employees under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their successor, if such is made within a period of one year from February 25, 1986."cralaw virtua1aw library

Executive Order No. 17 states that "in order to obviate unnecessary anxiety and demoralization among the deserving officials and employees, particularly in the career civil service, it is necessary to prescribe the rules and regulations for implementing the said constitutional provision to protect career civil servants whose qualifications and performance meet the standards of service demanded by the New Government, and to ensure that only those found corrupt, inefficient and undeserving are separated from the government service."cralaw virtua1aw library

With this objective, Executive Order No. 17 outlines the rules and procedures to be followed before an employee can be separated from government service. There is no doubt that under the law, the proceedings are summary in nature. Specifically, section 7 thereof provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 7. The committee shall adopt its rules of procedure, provided that proceedings in the Committee shall be summary in nature. The decision of the Ministers concerned shall be final if not reversed or modified by the Committee within thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition for reconsideration. No permanent appointment shall be issued to replace an incumbent who is separated pursuant to this Order until the expiration of the aforementioned thirty-day period or the denial of the petition for reconsideration."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pursuant to this provision, the Review Committee promulgated its own rules and regulations, section 5 of which states that "No formal hearing can be conducted nor shall examination of witnesses be allowed."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioner contends that his right to cross-examine the witnesses against him is a requirement of due process.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Trial type hearings in administrative investigations are not always necessary.

Summary proceedings are not per se violations of the principle of due process.

The summary procedures found in Section 40 of Presidential Decree No. 807, the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines may be cited in this regard.

In the case of In re: Apolinar Flores (65 SCRA 528, [1975]), this Court upheld the dismissal of a deputy sheriff who claimed that he was not accorded due process. The Court ruled that what is of ultimate importance is whether or not the Department Head exercised his sound discretion in summarily removing Mr. Flores from the service because of wrongful acts . . . or whether he was separated from the service purely on the mere whim or caprice of the Secretary of Justice. Summary procedures were similarly sustained in Ganaden v. Bolasco (64 SCRA 50 [1975]) and Taga-an v. Roa (72 SCRA 466, [1976]). In the latter case, the Court distinguished between criminal proceedings where proof beyond reasonable doubt is essential and administrative proceedings where disciplinary action is justified on the basis of the evidence before the investigating body showing clearly that the grounds for removal are substantiated.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In Marcelo v. Tantuico (142 SCRA 439 [1986]), the summary dismissal of an employee without necessity of a formal investigation when the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is strong was again sustained.

Likewise, in the case of Gonzales v. Honorable Secretary of Labor, (116 SCRA 573, 581 [1982]) we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The petitioners’ claim that the order dismissing the complaint in NLRC (Ad hoc) Case No. 0385 ‘does not partake of the nature of judgment or order on the merits’ contemplated by our Rules and the Supreme Court’ since the said order was merely based on the Fact Finding Report of the Labor Mediator and issued ‘without the benefit of investigation or presentation of evidence in support of their respective stand,’ is also devoid of merit. In the case of Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Philippine Labor Union, the Court said: When the Court of Industrial Relations refers a case to a commissioner for investigation, report and recommendation, and at such investigation the parties are duly represented by counsel, heard or at least given an opportunity to be heard, the requirements of due process has been satisfied even if the Court failed to set the report for hearing and a decision on the basis of such report, with the other evidence of the case, is a decision which meets the requirements of a fair and open hearing."cralaw virtua1aw library

Necessarily, the fundamental rule in the principle of due process is the opportunity to be heard. (See also Fariscal vda. de Emnas v. Emnas, 95 SCRA 470; Cornejo v. Secretary of Justice, 57 SCRA 663; Bermejo v. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764.)

In the case at bar, the petitioner was heard on his petition for reconsideration filed with the Review Committee. He was accorded every opportunity to present evidence in his behalf. The charges against him are easily refuted with documentary evidence regarding the completion of the project and his having attended the seminar at Tagaytay City. There is absolutely no evidence of arbitrariness or caprice in the questioned act of the respondents. Hence, he cannot claim that he was deprived of his right to due process of law. (See Sumadchat v. Court of Appeals, 111 SCRA 488). After filing his petition, the Review Committee asked him to submit such documents he might deem necessary to support his petition which he did. The Review Committee also made a summary investigation after which it came out with the following findings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The series of events leading to the filing of the aforementioned charges demonstrates the petitioner’s culpability. It appears that the municipal building of Boac required renovation and, thereupon, some work was done on the building. After the work was supposed to have been finished, a certificate of Settlement and Balances was drawn up, containing all the disbursement relative to the alleged renovation.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

The petitioner, being the Municipal Development and Planning Coordinator of Boac, was a signatory to the certificate. It is, of course, elementary administrative practice that his signature on it signified that he was warranting the accuracy and truth of the statements contained in the certificate.

It appears that the petitioner also executed a Certificate of Inspection and Acceptance, hereunder quoted in full:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

This is to certify that the RENOVATION OF MUNICIPAL BUILDING (PHASE III) located at Boac, Marinduque has been inspected by the undersigned and that the WORK has been done in accordance with the plans and specification.

Certifying further that the project has been FOUND complete and ACCEPTED for and behalf of the Municipal Government of Boac, this province.

ISSUED this 15th day of January 1985.

(SGD.) EDGARDO L. STO. DOMINGO

Mun. Planning & Dev’t. Coordinator

APPROVED:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(SGD.) REMEDIOS R. FESTIN

Municipal Mayor.’"

Subsequently, however, the Office of the Provincial Auditor of Marinduque discovered that the renovation was incomplete and was in violation of certain laws and rules. Among others, it was found that the actual construction did not conform with the approved plan, that an alteration in the work amounting to P200,000.00 was not necessary, that the second phase of the construction was certified to have been fully completed and accordingly full payment thereof had been made when in fact the second phase was not yet complete. Consequently, P726,863.79 of the total cost of renovation was suspended and later disallowed. Vide: Report of the Office of the Provincial Auditor to the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer of Boac, Marinduque dated June 23, 1986.

In a letter dated October 16, 1986, the Provincial Auditor of Marinduque, Carlos A. Evora, Jr., gave notice that if, within thirty days from receipt thereof, there was no request for reconsideration or appeal from persons "to be liable/adversely affected (by the findings abovestated)," the order for the withholding of payment of any due to person found liable would be made.

In answer to this notice, the petitioner wrote a letter for reconsideration to Evora on November 21, 1986. A careful perusal of this letter reveals that the petitioner raised only one defense: that the then Mayor Remedios R. Festin of Boac had advised him ‘not to meddle in the renovation because it (was) exclusively within the supervision and control of the local employees that, because of such advice, he then ‘filled-up’ and signed the certificate of inspection in question. Significantly, even in his verified petition which was transmitted to us on March 24, 1987 and which, at this point in time, is the latest pleading we have received from him, the petitioner has raised no additional defense at all.chanrobles law library : red

In his report to the Regional Office No. IV of the Commission on Audit, Evora rejected the petitioner’s defense, stating:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘We believe that his (petitioner’s) explanation contained under his letter dated November 21, 1986 attached hereto, does not relieve him of his liabilities. (1st Indorsement to the Regional Office No. IV, Commission on Audit, Quezon City, dated November 24, 1986).’"

Thus, Evora found the petitioner as one of the persons liable for the suspension/disallowance of the aforementioned P726,863.79:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘This office found Mr. Edgardo L. Sto. Domingo, Municipal and Development Officer of Boac, Marinduque, as one of the persons liable for the suspension /disallowance issued covering the disbursements made for the renovation of Boac Municipal building, particularly Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 17, of our Certificate of Settlement and Balances issued last June 23, 1986, a copy of which was duly furnished that office. One of the functions of a Municipal Planning and Development Officer was ‘to monitor or conduct the implementation of the different program, project activities in the municipality.’ In the exercise of this function and for which he was a signatory to the Certificate/Statement of the work accomplished, which leads to the payment of the claim, we found him liable. (Idem)." ‘

"We have no reason to disagree with the Provincial Auditor’s findings. As Municipal Development and Planning Coordinator of Boac, the petitioner certainly had the legal obligation to oversee the renovation of the municipal building in question, and check that it was properly done, since, as such officer, it was his duty to monitor or conduct the implementation of the different programs and project activities of Boac. He could not disregard such duty simply on the advice of the incumbent mayor not to meddle in the renovation of the municipal building in question. And having erroneously heeded such advice, the petitioner committed a serious administrative infraction, resulting in the disallowance of government expenditures in the amount of P726,863.79.

"Further, it appears that the respondent, in his capacity as Officer-In-Charge Mayor of Boac, had directed the petitioner to attend a seminar on the National Building Code from October 6 to 10, 1966 in the Philippine International Convention Center in Metro Manila and also a seminar workshop on town planning and zoning for Region IV in Tagaytay City on October 13 to 17, 1986. In the corresponding directive, the respondent authorized the petitioner to claim reimbursement for his travel and other necessary expenses relative to his attending these two seminars. Nevertheless, the petitioner ignored the directive and failed to attend the two seminars, which actuation of petitioner amounted to insubordination.

"The petitioner was notified of such charge of insubordination, since he was furnished, by registered mail (registry receipt No. 70199), a cow of the respondent’s letter to us dated March 10, 1987, which, among others, contained this charge. Yet to this day, even in his latest pleadings submitted to this Review Committee, the petitioner had offered no explanation for his disobedience." (pp. 31-33, Rollo)

We cannot ignore these findings of the Review Committee. The petitioner does not offer any defense against the charges against him except his claim that he was cleared by the Commission on Audit by virtue of a letter dated July 9, 1987 (Annex 1, Petition). We, however, fail to see any direct bearing of the letter on the charges directed against him.chanrobles law library : red

Nevertheless, the petitioner asserts that the OIC Mayor did not have authority to dismiss him. To substantiate his stand, he cites section 5 of Executive Order No. 17 which refers to the Head of Ministry as the authority to effect dismissals. In his case, he opines that the authority to effect dismissal is the Minister (now Secretary) of Local Governments.

This argument is without merit.

Article 161 of the Local Government Code provides that the "municipal planning and development coordinator shall be appointed by the Municipal Mayor . . ." This makes the petitioner a local employee and therefore, subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the mayor. Under section 78 of the Local Government Code, the mayor has the authority to remove, suspend and discipline his appointees pursuant to law. The general rule is that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint. (See Lacson v. Romero, 84 Phil. 740 [1949]; Bagatsing v. Herrera, 65 SCRA 434 [1975]). There appears to be no abuse by the Mayor of his power to discipline. There are valid grounds to terminate the petitioner’s employment.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The questioned resolution of the Review Committee under Executive Order No. 17 is AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan (C .J .), 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





September-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 76001 September 5, 1988 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31600 September 12, 1988 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. COMMUNITY BUILDERS CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48762 September 12, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDO M. ZOSA

  • G.R. No. 76768 September 12, 1988 - CARLOS KENG SENG v. LORENZO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80228 September 12, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-57519 September 13, 1988 - DELFIN ORODIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46881 September 15, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO CASTAÑEDA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-47821 September 15, 1988 - BENITO ROSALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77090 September 16, 1988 - DIOSDADO ESPADERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29320 September 19, 1988 - FELIPE SEGURA, ET AL. v. NICOLAS SEGURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44264 September 19, 1988 - HEDY Y. GAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45388 September 19, 1988 - TACIANA B. ESPEJO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47646 September 19, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR R. MARAVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-48728-29 September 19, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-60764 September 19, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BARDON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71142 September 19, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE MARALIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73794 September 19, 1988 - ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARKS CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74711 September 19, 1988 - NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75395 September 19, 1988 - ESTELITO BAGADIONG, ET AL. v. PLACIDA VDA. DE ABUNDO

  • G.R. No. 77210 September 19, 1988 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. LIWANAG PARAS BRIONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78535-36 September 19, 1988 - MANUEL DY v. MATILDE SACAY

  • G.R. No. L-32684 September 20, 1988 - RAMON TUMBAGAHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59097 September 20, 1988 - PEOPLE OF PHIL. v. ARSENIO D. TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. 73418 September 20, 1988 - PELICULA SABIDO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80006 September 21, 1988 - APOLONIA BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80294-95 September 21, 1988 - CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC OF THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80992 September 21, 1988 - EDWIN REANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36413 September 26, 1988 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39910 September 26, 1988 - CECILIA TEODORO DAYRIT, ET AL. v. FERNANDO A CRUZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-49762-64 September 26, 1988 - RANULFO PAMPARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68357 September 26, 1988 - SAMAHAN NG MGA NANGUNGUPAHAN SA AZCARRAGA TEXTILE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68992 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO PACNIS

  • G.R. No. L-68993 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-69205-06 September 26, 1988 - NUWHRAIN-BONANZA RESTAURANT CHAPTER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69934 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANITO INTINO

  • G.R. No. 73488 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO BALARES

  • G.R. No. 73859 September 26, 1988 - JUAN DE CASTRO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73876 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAURO G. CARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74123-24 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONILO L. PINLAC

  • G.R. No. 75816 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAVINO AGUINALDO

  • G.R. No. 75877 September 26, 1988 - SANTOS BERNARDO, ET AL. v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 76132 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO CLAVO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 76711 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARVIN H. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77201 September 26, 1988 - AVENTINO C. SASAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77290 September 26, 1988 - DIVINA JABALLAS v. CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 77951 September 26, 1988 - COOPERATIVE RURAL BANK OF DAVAO CITY, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78606 September 26, 1988 - GELACIO V. SAMULDE v. RAMON M. SALVANI, JR.

  • G.R. No. 79891 September 26, 1988 - AURELIO M. DE VERA v. C. F. SHARP & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80383 September 26, 1988 - EMMANUEL LABAJO v. PUREZA V. ALEJANDRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81163 September 26, 1988 - EDUARDO S. BARANDA, ET AL. v. TITO GUSTILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81969 September 26, 1988 - JOCELYN RULONA-AL AWADHI v. ABDULMAJID J. ASTIH

  • G.R. No. 82833 September 26, 1988 - 3M PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-52034 September 27, 1988 - SALVADOR LACORTE v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60935 September 27, 1988 - ANTONIO GARCIA, JR. v. SANTIAGO RANADA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75880 September 27, 1988 - BERNARDO M. CORDIAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45447 September 28, 1988 - CARLITO V. SEMBRANO v. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54287 September 2, 1988 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. CONRADO M. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75569 September 28, 1988 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80380 September 28, 1988 - CARLOS BELL RAYMOND, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-82173 September 28, 1988 - EDGAR S. ASUNCION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37079 September 29, 1988 - HEIRS OF ZOILO LLIDO v. PAULINO S. MARQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41322 September 29, 1988 - MUNICIPALITY OF KAPALONG, ET AL. v. FELIX L. MOYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44347 September 29, 1988 - VICENTE TAN v. CITY OF DAVAO

  • G.R. No. L-49731 September 29, 1988 - ALFREDO SERING v. RESTITUTO PLAZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70987 September 29, 1988 - GREGORIO Y. LIMPIN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75736 September 29, 1988 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU-TUCP), ET AL. v. ANTONIO V. BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80457 September 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIANO ROSE, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80737 September 29, 1988 - PHILIPPINE GRAPHIC ARTS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81760 September 29, 1988 - EDGARDO L. STO. DOMINGO v. SEDFREY A. ORDOÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-82542 September 29, 1988 - BARRY JOHN PRICE, ET AL. v. UNITED LABORATORIES

  • G.R. No. L-40218 September 30, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO E. SEBASTIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50168 September 30, 1988 - HEIRS OF GAVINO SABANAL v. BENJAMIN K. GOROSPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65935 September 30, 1988 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69136 September 30, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MEGA GENERAL MERCHANDISING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-74610-11 September 30, 1988 - ALGA MOHER INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES v. DIEGO P. ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74811 September 30, 1988 - CHUA YEK HONG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77032 September 30, 1988 - EXCEL AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. JUAN T. GOCHANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79488 September 30, 1988 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80040 September 30, 1988 - ISMAEL AMORGANDA, ET AL. v. COURT APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81381 September 30, 1988 - EFIGENIO S. DAMASCO v. HILARIO L. LAQUI, ET AL.