Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > December 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 82813 December 14, 1989 - EMELIA S. BLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 82813. December 14, 1989.]

EMELIA S. BLAS, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR YAO, Respondents.

Martin D. Pantaleon for Petitioner.

Douglas G. Baarde for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; LEASE; PROVISION THAT THE TERM OF THE SUBLEASE CONTRACT SHALL BE CO-TERMINUS WITH THE TERM OF THE PRINCIPAL LEASE; NOT A PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SUBLESSOR FROM SUBLETTING THE PREMISES FOR A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME; CASE AT BAR. — The Court of Appeals misread the provisions of the principal lease contract which specified that: "the term of the sublease contract shall only be co-terminous with the terms of the principal lease." To our mind, it is quite clear that the lessee was being acknowledged as entitled to sublease the premises provided that the term of the sublease agreement could not exceed the term of the principal lease; should the principal lease have been lawfully terminated prior to the expiration of its full five-year term, the term of the sublease would automatically expire also. There is nothing in the quoted provision which prohibits the lessee/sublessor from subletting the premises involved for a period of time shorter than that specified for the duration of the principal lease agreement. The lessee/sublessor was not being compelled to sublease the premises involved for a fixed term of five (5) years to begin and end with the period of the principal lease. Thus, from the fact that the original sublease expired on the same day that the principal lease contract ended on 31 December 1984, it did not follow that when the principal lease contract was subsequently extended for another five (5) years by virtue of the Metropolitan Trial Court’s decision, the period of the sublease was also thereby extended for the same a period of five (5) years.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUBLEASE AGREEMENT; NATURE, THEREOF, EXPLAINED. — The Court of Appeals misconceived the nature of the legal relationships here involved. In a sublease arrangement, there are two (2) distinct leases involved: the principal lease and the sublease. There are two (2) juridical relationships which co-exist here and are intimately related to each other but nonetheless distinct one from the other. In a sublease arrangement, the personality of the lessee qua lessee does not disappear; his rights and obligations vis-a-vis the lessor are not passed on to nor acquired by the sublessee.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SUBLESSEE TO LESSOR NOT A PAYMENT TO LESSEE/SUBLESSOR. — We believe that payment by respondent sublessee Yao to lessor Bichara was not payment to petitioner lessee/sublessor. Bichara was, in the main, and except only in the specific instances identified in the Civil Code, a stranger to the relationship between lessee/sublessor Blas and respondent sublessee Yao. The lessee/sublessor is not an agent of the lessor; nor is the lessor an agent of the lessee/sublessor. Respondent Yao was not entitled to ignore the rights of petitioner Blas; he had no right or authority to pay the sublease rentals to lessor Bichara, said rentals being due and payable to lessee/sublessor Blas, even though petitioner was being credited by lessor Bichara with the amount of the rentals being paid by respondent Yao.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; OBLIGATIONS OF AS SUBLESSOR. — Article 1651 of the Civil Code makes clear that the sub-lesee’s obligation to the sublessor subsist although the lessor may enforce against the sublessee the provisions of the principal lease contract relating to the use and preservation of the lease premises. Article 1652 permits the lessor to proceed against the sublessee for rent due from the lessee, but only on a subsidiary liability basis. In the instant case, there is no showing that the lessee/sublessor had incurred default vis-a-vis the lessor for rentals due from the former under the principal lease contract.


R E S O L U T I O N


FELICIANO, J.:


Petitioner Emilia S. Blas was lessee of the Premier Theater Building which was owned by Alfonso Bichara and located in Rizal Avenue, Grace Park, Caloocan City. Petitioner’s contract of lease with Bichara gave her the right to sublease the premises and was originally effective for a period of five (5) years, i.e., from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 1984.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Petitioner Blas in turn entered into an oral contract with private respondent Arthur Yao, subletting to the latter a portion of the premises for a monthly sublease rental of P5,000.00. She subleased another portion of the premises to one Emilio Sia for a monthly rental of P3,000.00. Respondent Yao paid his monthly sublease rentals to petitioner Blas and continued to do so after 1 January 1985 and until March 1985.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

On 27 March 1985, however, Alfonso Bichara wrote to private respondent Yao informing the latter that since the contract of lease between Bichara and petitioner Blas had expired on 31 December 1984, the rental due from respondent Yao and accruing from January 1985 and thereafter, were to be paid to Bichara. This demand was reiterated by Bichara in a letter to respondent Yao dated 24 July 1985. Respondent Yao then commenced paying his sublease rentals directly to Bichara.

In the meantime, Alfonso Bichara had filed an ejectment suit against petitioner Blas which was docketed as Civil Case No. 16988, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City. The Metropolitan Trial Court rendered a decision dated 11 November 1985, extending petitioner Blas’ lease contract with Bichara for another five (5) years counting from 1 January 1985 up to 31 December 1989.

Upon appeal by Bichara, the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City affirmed the decision of the lower court, and that decision became final and executory on 2 July 1986.

Petitioner Blas then demanded that respondent Yao pay to her the accrued sublease rentals. Respondent Yao, however, continued to remit his sublease rentals directly to lessor Bichara. Finally, in a letter dated 7 February 1987, petitioner demanded that respondent Yao pay the accrued rentals pertaining to the portion of the premises originally subleased to him as well as the accrued rentals pertaining to the portion he had taken over from sublessee Sia, and that he vacate both portions of the premises. Respondent Yao refused to leave the premises.chanrobles law library : red

Accordingly, petitioner Blas commenced an ejectment suit against private respondent Yao before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 51. After trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner Blas and ordered Mr. Yao to vacate the premises and to pay to petitioner reasonable compensation for the use of the premises at the rate of P5,000.00 a month for the space originally subleased to him and P3,000.00 a month for the space originally subleased to Mr. Sia, beginning 1 March 1987 and every month thereafter until the premises shall have been vacated.

Respondent Yao went on appeal before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 123, and that court in a Decision dated 17 March 1987, reversed the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court and dismissed petitioner’s ejectment suit, while requiring petitioner to pay Mr. Yao P5,000.00 for attorney’s fees.

A Petition for Review was then filed by petitioner Blas with the Court of Appeals. On 28 March 1988, however, the Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that petitioner was not entitled to eject respondent sublessee Yao because: (a) the period of the sublease had not yet expired, the same having been renewed for five (5) years upon renewal of the principal contract of lease for five (5) years; and (b) respondent Yao had not defaulted on the payment of sublease rentals, since he had been paying the same to lessor Bichara who in turn was crediting petitioner with the amounts thereof.

In the instant Petition for Review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, two (2) issues are therefore raised: firstly, whether or not the sublease had been renewed for a period of five (5) years; and secondly, whether or not respondent Yao had incurred default in the payment of the sublease rentals.

In respect of the first issue, the Court of Appeals 1 held that the period of the sublease contract had been automatically renewed upon the renewal of the principal lease contract. The Court of Appeals said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"However, in the instant case, the record shows that the sublease between petitioner and private respondent is one with a fixed period but not on a month-to-month basis. The principal lease contract between the petitioner and Alfonso Bichara, the lessor, permits the sublease of the premises but the sublease of the premises shall be co-terminous with the principal lease. Thus, in the principal lease contract dated March 20, 1980, it was stipulated among others that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘With respect however, to the store and other commercial spaces at the ground floor of the building, the Lessee shall have the right to sublet the same provided that the term of the sublease agreement shall only be co-terminous with the terms of this principal lease.’

In view thereof, the sublease, being co-terminous with the principal lease contract expired on December 31, 1984; and was subsequently extended for another five years by virtue of the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch L, Caloocan City, extending the lease for another five years from January 1, 1985. It has been held that the right of the sublease to remain in the premises depends on the right of the lessee himself to remain (Sipin v. CFI of Manila, 74 Phil. 640, Phil. Consolidated Freight Lines, Inc. v. Ajon, Et Al., L-1020608, April 16, 1958; Duello v. Gotico, L-17846, April 29, 1963).

x       x       x" 2

We think that the Court of Appeals misread the provisions of the principal lease contract which specified that: "the term of the sublease contract shall only be co-terminous with the terms of the principal lease." To our mind, it is quite clear that the lessee was being acknowledged as entitled to sublease the premises provided that the term of the sublease agreement could not exceed the term of the principal lease; should the principal lease have been lawfully terminated prior to the expiration of its full five-year term, the term of the sublease would automatically expire also. There is nothing in the quoted provision which prohibits the lessee/sublessor from subletting the premises involved for a period of time shorter than that specified for the duration of the principal lease agreement. The lessee/sublessor was not being compelled to sublease the premises involved for a fixed term of five (5) years to begin and end with the period of the principal lease. Thus, from the fact that the original sublease expired on the same day that the principal lease contract ended on 31 December 1984, it did not follow that when the principal lease contract was subsequently extended for another five (5) years by virtue of the Metropolitan Trial Court’s decision, the period of the sublease was also thereby extended for the same a period of five (5) years. Petitioner lessee/sublessor could, of course, have renewed the sublease for the full period of five (5) years; but he did not. What he did was simply to continue subleasing the premises to respondent Yao on exactly the same basis as before the expiration of the original term of the principal lease and before the renewal of such term: the oral sublease contract simply continued on a month-to-month basis and was hence terminable at the end of any particular month.

The case law cited by the Court of Appeals does not run counter to the conclusion we have reached above. From the proposition that the right of the sublessee to remain in the premises depends on the right of the lessee himself to remain in the premises, it simply does not follow that the lessee/sublessor may not enter into a sublease agreement with a term shorter than that of the principal lease. Finally, examination of the record yields no reason at all for the lessor to have sought to compel the lessee/sublessor to sublet the premises only for the precise term — no more, no less — of the principal lease, that is, for five (5) years and not for any shorter period.chanrobles law library : red

Turning to the second issue, the Court of Appeals held that respondent sublessee Yao had not been in default in the payment of sublease rentals to petitioner. Indeed, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner was estopped from raising the issue for the reason that she had acknowledged that the sublease rentals paid by Mr. Yao to lessor Bichara were credited by Bichara to petitioner’s own rental account.

We consider that the Court of Appeals misconceived the nature of the legal relationships here involved. In a sublease arrangement, there are two (2) distinct leases involved: the principal lease and the sublease. There are two (2) juridical relationships which co-exist here and are intimately related to each other but nonetheless distinct one from the other. In a sublease arrangement, the personality of the lessee qua lessee does not disappear; his rights and obligations vis-a-vis the lessor are not passed on to nor acquired by the sublessee. 3 Manresa, in distinguishing carefully the relationship between the lessee/sublessor and sublessee on the one hand, from the relationship which arises between a lessor and the assignee of a lessee’s rights under the lease contract, on the other hand, wrote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"4.� Que el cesionario tiene acción directa contra el arrendador para exigir de él el cumplimiento de todas las obligaciones que este estipulo con el arrendatario, de igual modo que él esta también directamente obligado con el propio arrendador por razón de todo lo que se deriva del contrato.

Del concepto del subarriendo se deducen las tres consecuencias siguientes, contrarias a las tres primeras que acabamos de enumerar:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1.a El subarrendador goza por el precio del subarriendo de la preferencia establecida en el num. 7.� del art. 1.922 del Codigo.

2.a El subarrendatario puede exigir que la cosa se le entregue en buen estado de reparaciones a fin de que sirva para el uso a que se la destina.

3.a Las clausulas particulares del arriendo originario, mediante las cuales se hayan derogado los principios generales que rigen el contrato de arrendamiento, no pueden ser opuestas al subarrendatario ni ser invocadas por ésté.

Agréguese a estas differencias la consideración de que en la cesion de arrendamiento, el arrendatario transmite integro su derecho, sin añadir ni quitar cosa alguna, sin que se altere, en cuanto a su fondo sustancial, el contenido de la relación, existente entre él y el arrendador, mientras que en el subarriendo todas las alteraciones son posibles, siempre que naturalmente no redunden en perjuicio del arrendador que no ha intervenido en el contrato; as!, por ejemplo, el subarriendo podra referirse a parte tan sólo de la cosa arrendada, podra estipularse_duración distinta, precio mayor o menor, etc., y se acabaran de formar al exacto concepto de uno y otro acto.

Esta es la diferencia esencial entre los actos distintos de que tratamos. En la cesión, el arrendatario transmite en absolute su derecho, su personalidad desaparece, quedan solamente en la relación juridica dos personas, el arrendador y el cesionario, que se convierte en arrendatario. En el subarriendo no desaparece personalidad alguna; hay does arriendos y dos relaciones juridicas diferentes aunque intimamente ligadas y relacionadas la una con la otra." 4

Thus, we believe that payment by respondent sublessee Yao to lessor Bichara was not payment to petitioner lessee/sublessor. Bichara was, in the main, and except only in the specific instances identified in the Civil Code, a stranger to the relationship between lessee/sublessor Blas and respondent sublessee Yao. The lessee/sublessor is not an agent of the lessor; nor is the lessor an agent of the lessee/sublessor. Respondent Yao was not entitled to ignore the rights of petitioner Blas; he had no right or authority to pay the sublease rentals to lessor Bichara, said rentals being due and payable to lessee/sublessor Blas, even though petitioner was being credited by lessor Bichara with the amount of the rentals being paid by respondent Yao.chanrobles law library : red

Articles 1651 and 1652 of the Civil Code provide as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Article 1651. Without prejudice to his obligation toward the sublessor, the sublessee is bound to the lessor for all acts which refer to the use and preservation of the thing leased in the manner stipulated between the lessor and the lessee." (Emphasis supplied).

"Article 1652. The sublessee is subsidiarily liable to the lessor for any rent due from the lessee. However, the sublessee shall not be responsible beyond the amount of rent due from him, in accordance with the terms of the sublease, at the time of the extra-judicial demand by the lessor.

Payments of rent in advance by the sublessee shall be deemed not to have been made, so far as the lessor’s claim is concerned, unless said payments were effected in virtue of the custom of the place." (Emphasis supplied).

Article 1651 makes clear that the sublessee’s obligations to the sublessor subsist although the lessor may enforce against the sublessee the provisions of the principal lease contract relating to the use and preservation of the lease premises. Article 1652 permits the lessor to proceed against the sublessee for rent due from the lessee, but only on a subsidiary liability basis. In the instant case, there is no showing that the lessee/sublessor had incurred default vis-a-vis the lessor for rentals due from the former under the principal lease contract.

We conclude that respondent Yao was in default vis-a-vis petitioner Blas in the matter of payment of sublease rentals and that accordingly, petitioner was entitled to terminate the sublease agreement for failure of respondent Yao to pay sublease rentals due. If respondent Yao was in doubt as to whether or not petitioner’s lease contract with Bichara was still subsisting, he should have consigned in court the sublease rentals accruing during the pendency of the ejectment case filed by lessor Bichara against lessee Blas, with notice to the latter. 5 Having failed so to consign in accordance with law the sublease rentals due and payable, respondent Yao breached the contract of sublease.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 28 March 1988 in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 13479. The decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court dated 26 June 1987 ejecting respondent Yao from the premises in question and requiring him to pay reasonable compensation at the rate of P5,000.00 per month for the space originally subleased to him and P3,000.00 for the space originally subleased to Efren Sia beginning 1 March 1987 and until the said premises shall have been actually vacated, and awarding petitioner the sum of P4,000.00 as attorney’s fees and assessing costs against respondent Yao, is hereby REINSTATED. Costs against private Respondent.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Fernan (C.J.,) Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortés, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. The ponente was Luciano, J. with Lantin and Lapeña, Jr., JJ., concurring.

2. Rollo, p. 17; Emphasis supplied.

3. Marimperio Compañia Naviera, S.A. v. Court of Appeals, 156 SCRA 368 (1987).

4. 10 Manresa, Comentarios al Codigo Civil Español, Cuarto Edition at 438 (1931); Emphasis supplied.

5. Landicho v. Tensuan, 151 SCRA 410 (1987).




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






December-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 55963 December 1, 1989 - JOSE FONTANILLA, ET AL. v. INOCENCIO D. MALIAMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56402-03 December 1, 1989 - EFREN CUNANAN, ET AL. v. ANGELINA SENGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 30453 December 4, 1989 - ANGELINA PUENTEVELLA ECHAUS v. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 41295 December 4, 1989 - ALFREDO C. RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 66059-60 December 4, 1989 - FILIPINAS INVESTMENT and FINANCE CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66437 December 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME A. GUEVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69078 December 4, 1989 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76342 December 4, 1989 - SONIDA INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CORNELIO W. WASAN, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81327 December 4, 1989 - CRISPINA VANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82264-66 December 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI A. GULINAO

  • G.R. No. 82588 December 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO FUSTER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83175 December 4, 1989 - FREDILLO GUILLEN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83281 December 4, 1989 - FLORENTINO OZAETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83693 December 4, 1989 - LEANDRO ALAZAS v. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84419 December 4, 1989 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL. v. JOSE ROXAS

  • G.R. No. 84908 December 4, 1989 - FELIX ABAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87001 December 4, 1989 - LA UNION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. BRAULIO D. YARANON, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3049 December 4, 1989 - PERLA Y. LAGUITAN v. SALVADOR F. TINIO

  • G.R. No. 84516 December 5, 1989 - DIONISIO CARPIO v. SERGIO DOROJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76203-04 December 6, 1989 - ENRICO M. PEREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82341 December 6, 1989 - SUNDOWNER DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74027 December 7, 1989 - SILAHIS MARKETING CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79060 December 8, 1989 - ANICETO C. OCAMPO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84195 December 11, 1989 - LUCIO C. TAN, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79554 December 14, 1989 - LEOPOLDO G. DIZON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82813 December 14, 1989 - EMELIA S. BLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82870 December 14, 1989 - NEMESIO E. PRUDENTE v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88052 December 14, 1989 - JOSE P. MECENAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57415 December 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL BAYLON RILLORTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67170-72 December 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERSON MAGHANOY

  • G.R. No. 71566 December 15, 1989 - FRANCISCO D. PALANCA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75875 December 15, 1989 - WOLFGANG AURBACH, ET AL. v. SANITARY WARES MANUFACTURING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75934 December 15, 1989 - WILLY CARSON, ET AL. v. GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76509 December 15, 1989 - PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81788 December 15, 1989 - NATIONAL INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84992 December 15, 1989 - PHILIPPINE ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90426 December 15, 1989 - SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC. v. BUENAVENTURA C. MAGSALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72623 December 18, 1989 - TEODOSIA C. LEBRILLA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78787 December 18, 1989 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80593 December 18, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. TERESITA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84818 December 18, 1989 - PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORP. v. JOSE LUIS A. ALCUAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88105 December 18, 1989 - NICOLAS FECUNDO v. RAMON BERJAMEN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3195 December 19, 1989 - MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER v. ATTY. HUMBERTO V. POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. 29627 December 19, 1989 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58168 December 19, 1989 - CONCEPCION MAGSAYSAY-LABRADOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67938 December 19, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72572 December 19, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74182 December 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO L. LLARENA

  • G.R. No. 75530 December 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77582 December 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO SAYANG-OD

  • G.R. No. 81563 December 19, 1989 - AMADO C. ARIAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 82753 December 19, 1989 - ESTELA COSTUNA v. LAUREANA DOMONDON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86675 December 19, 1989 - MRCA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.xx

  • G.R. No. 88218 December 19, 1989 - CARCON DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43236 December 20, 1989 - OLYMPIA INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51449 December 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO HIZON

  • G.R. No. 67548 December 20, 1989 - IRENEO ODEJAR, ET AL. v. ISIDRO P. GUICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69969 December 20, 1989 - ANTONIO L. TOTTOC v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72883 December 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO ESPINOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76148 December 20, 1989 - ELISEO CARO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81403 December 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ANDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 86074 December 20, 1989 - LILIA LIWAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87676 December 20, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88075-77 December 20, 1989 - MAXIMO TACAY, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TAGUM, Davao del Norte, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73887 December 21, 1989 - GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORP. v. HONORATO JUDICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82170 & 82372 December 21, 1989 - TEODORO YBAÑEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82303 December 21, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 85847 December 21, 1989 - BELEN GREGORIO, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86344 December 21, 1989 - RAUL A. DAZA v. LUIS C. SINGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87721-30 December 21, 1989 - BENJAMIN P. ABELLA, ET AL. v. ADELINA INDAY LARRAZABAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88265 December 21, 1989 - SANTIAGO A. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. ALFREDO R. BENGZON

  • G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989 - DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, ET AL. v. ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 19328 December 22, 1989 - ALEJANDRO KATIGBAK, ET AL. v. SOLICITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52159 December 22, 1989 - JOSE PILAPIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55159 December 22, 1989 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 60741-43 December 22, 1989 - NEEDLE QUEEN CORP. v. MANUELA A. NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69260 December 22, 1989 - MUNICIPALITY OF BIÑAN v. JOSE MAR GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84111 December 22, 1989 - JIMMY O. YAOKASIN v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86625 December 22, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88243 December 22, 1989 - ROGELIO O. GARCIA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87687 December 26, 1989 - ISABELO T. SABELLO v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS

  • G.R. No. 72085 December 28, 1989 - CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 42108 December 29, 1989 - OSCAR D. RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58122 December 29, 1989 - MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 58768-70 December 29, 1989 - LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS EMPLOYEES, ET AL. v. LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59581 December 29, 1989 - TARCISIO ICAO v. SIMPLICIO M. APALISOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65376 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO PETALCORIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68422 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITUTO B. BRAVO

  • G.R. No. 72313 December 29, 1989 - RICARDO CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75602 December 29, 1989 - TRANS-ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTRACTORS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75618 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO MARMITA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 77418 December 29, 1989 - RODERICK CASIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79025 December 29, 1989 - BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80612-16 December 29, 1989 - AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC., ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81798 December 29, 1989 - LAO GI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82121 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO B. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 83885 December 29, 1989 - NICANOR A. CATRAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.