Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > April 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 89318 April 3, 1990 - MARIANO R. SANTIAGO v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 89318. April 3, 1990.]

ATTY. MARIANO R. SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. HON. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, JR., HON. LUIS TUAZON, JR., and ATTY. ELEAZAR FERRY, Respondents.

Mariano R. Santiago for and in his own behalf.

E.G. Ferry Law Offices for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; INTERVENTION OF THE OFFENDED PARTY IN CRIMINAL ACTION; EXCEPTION. — It is well-settled that a contempt charge partakes the nature of a penal proceeding. Being so, it is subject to the rules on criminal procedure and the rules on the intervention of the offended party in criminal actions. The rule is that: SEC. 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. — Unless the offended party has waived the civil action or expressly reserved the right to institute it separately from the criminal action, and subject to the provision of Section 5 hereof, he may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense. Aside from the above exceptions, the intervention of the offended party is subject to the direction and control of the fiscal, and for the sole purpose of enforcing the civil liability of the accused, and as we have held, "not of demanding punishment of the accused." Thus: Consequently, where from the nature of the offense, or where the law defining and punishing the offense charged does not provide for an indemnity, the offended party may not intervene in the prosecution of the offense.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; UNWARRANTED IN CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, there is no justification for the prosecution of the case by a private prosecutor. In this instance, the kind of contempt (indirect) for which the petitioner is sought to be held liable provides for no indemnity because the alleged "obstruction" committed was an offense against the State, the respondent court in particular, which involves no private party. Thus, the appearance of Atty. Eleazar Ferry, on behalf of Mrs. Carolina Orozco, was unwarranted.

3. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; CONTEMPT; CIVIL AND CRIMINAL FEATURES OF ACCUSATION; DISTINGUISHED. — It is true that in [Converse Rubber Corp. v. Jacinto Rubber & Plastic Co., Inc., Nos. L-27425 & 30505, April 28, 1980, 97 SCRA 158] we sought to distinguish between the civil and criminal features of an accusation for contempt; our effort, however, was not to halve contempt into a civil and penal proceeding, because contempt is inherently criminal in character. (In the Converse case, contempt was said to be "criminal" "when the purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court and protect its outraged dignity." It is "civil" "when there is failure to do something ordered by a court to be done for the benefit of a party.") But whether the first or the second, contempt is still a criminal proceeding in which acquittal, for instance, is a bar to a second prosecution. The distinction is for the purpose only of determining the character of punishment to be administered. We held thus: . . . And in Ex parte Grossman (267 U.S., 87; 69 Law. ed, 527, 532), the Supreme Court of the United States, through Chief Justice Taft, said: "In the Gompers case this court points out that, it is not the fact of punishment, but rather its character and purpose that makes the difference between the two kinds of contempts. For civil contempts, the punishment is remedial and for the benefit of the complainant, and a pardon cannot stop it. For criminal contempts, the sentence is punitive in the public interest to vindicate the authority of the court and to deter other like derelictions."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; DENIAL THEREOF AFTER TRIAL; AMOUNTS TO ACQUITTAL; NOT APPEALABLE. — But the fact, say, that the punishment, in the words of Slade Perkins, is "remedial and for the benefit of the complainant," (which makes contempt one of the "civil" kind), does not convert the criminal contempt proceeding into a civil case, in which an appeal lies in the event of a denial. Thus: . . . It is not the sole reason for dismissing this appeal. In the leading case of In re Mison, Jr. v. Subido, it was stressed by Justice J.B.L. Reyes as ponente, that the contempt proceeding far from being a civil action is "of a criminal nature and of summary character in which the court exercises but limited jurisdiction." It was then explicitly held: "Hence, as in criminal proceedings, an appeal would not lie from the order of dismissal of, or an exoneration from, a charge of contempt of court." Such a doctrine is traceable to an opinion by Justice Street in Lee Yick Hon v. Collector of Customs. A later decision is that of Pajao v. Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte. Justice Alex Reyes, speaking for the Court, pointed out that with contempt proceedings being "in their nature penal," its denial "after trial amounts to a virtual acquittal from which an appeal would not lie. (II Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, 3rd ed. 125)." There is this qualification in a ponencia of Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Amoren v. Pineda: "Likewise, the ruling that an acquittal from a contempt charge is not appealable, like an acquittal in a criminal case (Pajao v. Board of Canvassers, 88 Phil. 588) does not apply to the case before us, since there has been no adjudication on the merits of the charge, but a ruling upon a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional ground."


D E C I S I O N


SARMIENTO, J.:


The petitioner asks the Court to annul an order of the respondent judge directing further proceedings in connection with the prosecution for indirect contempt against him (the petitioner) arising from an incident in Criminal Case No. 89-XI-01 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch XI.

The petitioner, a practicing attorney, was counsel for Rene Peralta, the accused in Criminal Case No. 89-3854 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 88, * a prosecution for kidnapping of one Amylie Rosalie Orozco. Pending further proceedings therein, the petitioner moved for investigation on the ground that Amylie had come forward to claim that "she was not kidnapped and that she went voluntarily with RENE PERALTA, her boyfriend and father of the child she is carrying." 1

The assistant city prosecutor was scheduled to submit the sworn statement of Amylie on July 10, 1989 and recommend the dismissal of the kidnapping charge. Amylie was also supposed to affirm her statement before the court.

On the same date, it appears that Amylie’s mother, Carolina Orozco, had commenced charges for "disobedience" 2 against Amylie with the respondent court. 3

It also appears that when Amylie arrived at the courthouse (Quezon City), she was "intercepted" by alleged CIS agents and Quezon City policemen to serve a warrant of arrest in connection with the "disobedience" charge. 4 The petitioner allegedly requested the peace officers aforesaid to defer service of the warrant until after Amylie had testified in court. They apparently agreed to present her to Judge Velasco in open court and later in his chamber where the Judge interviewed her and her mother.

Thereafter, an accusation of indirect contempt was brought against the petitioner before the respondent judge, for obstructing the implementation of the warrant of arrest against Amylie. 5

On July 11, 1989, the respondent judge directed the petitioner to answer Mrs. Orosco’s motion. 6

On July 17, 1989, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, which the respondent judge considered as an answer. 7

On July 19, 1989, the case was called for hearing. The petitioner appeared on his behalf while Atty. Eleazar Ferry, with the conformity of Fiscal Luis Tuason, Jr., entered his appearance as private prosecutor. The petitioner interposed his objection to Atty. Ferry’s appearance, "in the absence of any damage claim for which the intervention of the offended party is warranted." cralawnad

The respondent judge overruled the petitioner, for which the latter asked for time to raise the matter to a higher court. The judge denied his motion.

Hence, this petition.

On August 16, 1989, we issued a Temporary Restraining Order whereby the respondent judge, his "officers, agents, representatives and/or persons acting upon your (his) orders or in your (his) place or stead are hereby RESTRAINED from further proceeding with the trial of Crim. Case No. 89-XI-01, entitled ‘In the Matter of the Petition to Cite Atty. Mariano Santiago for Contempt: Atty. Mariano Santiago, Respondent.’"

The only question is whether or not the appearance of the private prosecutor in question is proper and warranted.

It is well-settled that a contempt charge partakes the nature of a penal proceeding. 8 Being so, it is subject to the rules on criminal procedure and the rules on the intervention of the offended party in criminal actions.

The rule is that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SEC. 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. — Unless the offended party has waived the civil action or expressly reserved the right to institute it separately from the criminal action, and subject to the provision of Section 5 hereof, he may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense. 9

Aside from the above exceptions, the intervention of the offended party is subject to the direction and control of the fiscal, 10 and for the sole purpose of enforcing the civil liability of the accused, and as we have held, "not of demanding punishment of the accused." 11 Thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Consequently, where from the nature of the offense, or where the law defining and punishing the offense charged does not provide for an indemnity, the offended party may not intervene in the prosecution of the offense. 12

It is true that in another case, 13 we sought to distinguish between the civil and criminal features of an accusation for contempt; our effort, however, was not to halve contempt into a civil and penal proceeding, because contempt is inherently criminal in character. (In the Converse case, contempt was said to be "criminal" "when the purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court and protect its outraged dignity." 14 It is "civil" "when there is failure to do something ordered by a court to be done for the benefit of a party.") 15 But whether the first or the second, contempt is still a criminal proceeding in which acquittal, for instance, is a bar to a second prosecution. 16 The distinction is for the purpose only of determining the character of punishment to be administered. We held thus:chanrobles.com : virtual law library

. . . And in Ex parte Grossman (267 U.S., 87; 69 Law. ed, 527, 532), the Supreme Court of the United States, through Chief Justice Taft, said: "In the Gompers case this court points out that, it is not the fact of punishment, but rather its character and purpose that makes the difference between the two kinds of contempts. For civil contempts, the punishment is remedial and for the benefit of the complainant, and a pardon cannot stop it. For criminal contempts, the sentence is punitive in the public interest to vindicate the authority of the court and to deter other like derelictions." 17

But the fact, say, that the punishment, in the words of Slade Perkins, is "remedial and for the benefit of the complainant," (which makes contempt one of the "civil" kind), does not convert the criminal contempt proceeding into a civil case, in which an appeal lies in the event of a denial. Thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


It is not the sole reason for dismissing this appeal. In the leading case of In re Mison, Jr. v. Subido, it was stressed by Justice J.B.L. Reyes as ponente, that the contempt proceeding far from being a civil action is "of a criminal nature and of summary character in which the court exercises but limited jurisdiction." It was then explicitly held: "Hence, as in criminal proceedings, an appeal would not lie from the order of dismissal of, or an exoneration from, a charge of contempt of court." Such a doctrine is traceable to an opinion by Justice Street in Lee Yick Hon v. Collector of Customs. A later decision is that of Pajao v. Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte. Justice Alex Reyes, speaking for the Court, pointed out that with contempt proceedings being "in their nature penal," its denial "after trial amounts to a virtual acquittal from which an appeal would not lie. (II Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, 3rd ed. 125)." There is this qualification in a ponencia of Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Amoren v. Pineda: "Likewise, the ruling that an acquittal from a contempt charge is not appealable, like an acquittal in a criminal case (Pajao v. Board of Canvassers, 88 Phil. 588) does not apply to the case before us, since there has been no adjudication on the merits of the charge, but a ruling upon a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional ground." 18

x       x       x


In the case at bar, there is no justification for the prosecution of the case by a private prosecutor. In this instance, the kind of contempt (indirect) for which the petitioner is sought to be held liable provides for no indemnity because the alleged "obstruction" committed was an offense against the State, the respondent court in particular, which involves no private party. Thus, the appearance of Atty. Eleazar Ferry, on behalf of Mrs. Carolina Orozco, was unwarranted.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The respondent judge is ordered to proceed with the instant contempt proceedings, to be prosecuted by the fiscal, without any further delay. Accordingly, the Temporary Restraining Order is hereby LIFTED.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



* Hon. Tirso Velasco, presiding judge.

1. Rollo, 3.

2. The specific nature of this charge is not apparent from the pleadings.

3. Id., 69; the petition is captioned "Motion to Cite Atty. Mariano Santiago for Contempt of Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. Id.

5. Id.

6. Id., 70.

7. Id., 67.

8. The Insurance Commissioner v. Globe Assurance Co., Inc., No. L-27874, January 30, 1982, 111 SCRA 202; Clapano v. Gapultos, Nos. 51574-77, September 30, 1984, 132 SCRA 429.

9. 1985 RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 110, sec. 16.

10. Tan, Jr. v. Gallardo, Nos. L-41213-14, October 5, 1976, 73 SCRA 306.

11. Supra, 312.

12. Supra, 313.

13. Converse Rubber Corp. v. Jacinto Rubber & Plastic Co., Inc., Nos. L-27425 & 30505, April 28, 1980, 97 SCRA 158.

14. Supra, 182.

15. Supra.

16. Globe Assurance Co., Inc., supra.

17. Slade Perkins v. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271, 280 (1933).

18. Globe Assurance Co., Inc., supra., 204-205.




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






April-1990 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47991 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALDEGUER

  • G.R. No. 49856 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAYBAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59154 April 3, 1990 - MERIDIAN ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61965 April 3, 1990 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63225 April 3, 1990 - ELEAZAR V. ADLAWAN v. VALERIANO P. TOMOL

  • G.R. No. 75619 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

  • G.R. No. 77397 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO P. JOMAO-AS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81026 April 3, 1990 - PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81493 April 3, 1990 - SUPERSTAR SECURITY AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82112 April 3, 1990 - ROSA SABADLAN VALENCIA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 90, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86164 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR SIMENE

  • G.R. No. 88724 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEILITO ORITA

  • G.R. No. 89318 April 3, 1990 - MARIANO R. SANTIAGO v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91096 April 3, 1990 - CAPRICORN INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND TOURS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69386 April 4, 1990 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46208 April 5, 1990 - FIDELITY SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. PEDRO D. CENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63735 April 5, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO MALINAO

  • G.R. No. L-64735 April 5, 1990 - ATLAS DEVELOPER & STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SARMIENTO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72194 April 5, 1990 - HEIRS OF CLARO L. LAURETA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75640 April 5, 1990 - NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83843-44 April 5, 1990 - IN RE: ROSITA LABRADOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84324 April 5, 1990 - SANTIAGO AQUINO, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO R. LUNTOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42281 April 6, 1990 - GODOFREDA B. SUMALINOG v. CORAZON Q. DORONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46364 April 6, 1990 - SULPICIA JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47422 April 6, 1990 - ILDEFONSA CERDON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57025 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO C. ARSENIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62021 April 6, 1990 - FLORA LAURON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63630 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MEDEL B. TANGLIBEN

  • G.R. No. 76028 April 6, 1990 - SPS. JOSE R. LANSANG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76213 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBY RONQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 85611 April 6, 1990 - VICTORIANO ZAMORAS v. ROQUE SU, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86728 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS VARGAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 87203 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL DAWANDAWAN

  • G.R. No. 87245 April 6, 1990 - UNIVERSAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87617 April 6, 1990 - JOE HODGES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88400 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL GUINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88602 April 6, 1990 - TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51973 April 16, 1990 - ELY CHAN SA VELASCO v. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35205 April 17, 1990 - NATIVIDAD VILLAFLOR v. JOSE JUEZAN

  • G.R. No. L-47916 April 17, 1990 - HOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60323 April 17, 1990 - MAGDALENA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69816 April 17, 1990 - POLICARPIO Y. FAUSTO v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70393 April 17, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO LATI

  • G.R. No. 71889 April 17, 1990 - SOCORRO VDA. DE MONDRAGON, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74203 April 17, 1990 - JOSE T. TAYOTO, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF CABALO KUSOP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75773 April 17, 1990 - TOMAS JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76838 April 17, 1990 - LUALHATI A. COJUANGCO v. PURIFICACION VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88537 April 17, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-425 April 17, 1990 - OSCAR PALMA PAGASIAN v. CESAR P. AZURA

  • G.R. No. 76100 April 18, 1990 - SALEM ALEX T. PALO v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE

  • G.R. No. 77755 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO P. CONSUELO

  • G.R. No. 82375 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83260 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN G. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88550 April 18, 1990 - INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85742 April 19, 1990 - JESUS F. SALAZAR, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70835 April 20, 1990 - ROGELIO P. CELI, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78750 April 20, 1990 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. JOSE V. NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. 86220 April 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO P. CIOBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88561 April 20, 1990 - HERMAN ARMOVIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89604 April 20, 1990 - ROQUE FLORES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89879 April 20, 1990 - JAIME PABALAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57308 April 23, 1990 - GREAT PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66683 April 23, 1990 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44905 April 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL MONEGRO TORRE

  • G.R. No. 68152 April 25, 1990 - CEFERINO ZAIDE, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78527 April 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN K. GUIAGUI

  • G.R. No. 88092 April 25, 1990 - CITADEL LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88538 April 25, 1990 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DIONISIO C. DELA SERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89431 April 25, 1990 - ERIBERTO G. VALENCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43277 April 26, 1990 - STANDARD MINERAL PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49298 April 26, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56838 April 26, 1990 - GENARO NAVERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70008 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALITO MOLINA

  • G.R. No. 79311 April 26, 1990 - PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80298 April 26, 1990 - EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP. v. LEONOR SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81564 April 26, 1990 - ACTING REGISTRARS OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS OF PASAY, ET AL. v. RTC, BRANCH 57, IN MKT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82362 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO C. CLORES

  • G.R. No. 84313 April 26, 1990 - HEIRS OF DECEASED COSME RABE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85822 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONILO ALBURO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85840 April 26, 1990 - SERVANDO’S INCORPORATED v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86163 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO SALVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87958 April 26, 1990 - NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, ET AL. v. STOLT-NIELSEN PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46845 April 27, 1990 - PEDRO T. SANTIAGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47281 April 27, 1990 - JUAN SALA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL (Branch V), ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-49241-42 April 27, 1990 - RINCONADA TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68997 April 27, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO C. LIBAG

  • G.R. No. 73010 April 27, 1990 - REVA RAZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88586 April 27, 1990 - CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.