Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > December 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 91025 December 19, 1990 - UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 91025. December 19, 1990.]

UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondents.

Banzuela, Flores, Miralles, Raneses, Sy, Taquio & Associates for Petitioner.

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for Private Respondent.


R E S O L U T I O N


MEDIALDEA, J.:


This special civil action of certiorari assails the resolution (dated June 5, 1989) of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) relative to Certified Case No. 0522, and the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration (dated August 8, 1989).

The antecedents are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On June 22, 1988, the petitioner Union of the Filipro Employees, the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees of Nestle Philippines, (private respondent) filed a Notice of Strike at the Department of Labor raising the issues of CBA deadlock and unfair labor practice.

The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) invited the parties for a conference on February 4, 1988 for the purpose of settling the dispute. The private respondent however, assailed the legal personality of the proponents of the said notice of strike to represent the Nestle employees. This notwithstanding, the NCMB proceeded to invite the parties to attend the conciliation meetings and to which private respondent failed to attend contending that it will deal only with a negotiating panel duly constituted and mandated in accordance with the UFE Constitution and By-laws.chanrobles law library : red

The records show that before the filing of said notice of strike, or on June 30, 1987, the respective CBAs in the four (4) units of Nestle, in Alabang-Cabuyao, Makati, Cagayan de Oro and Cebu/Davao work locations had all expired. Under the said CBAs, Alabang/Cabuyao and Makati units were represented by the UFE; the Cagayan de Oro unit was represented by WATU; while the Cebu-Davao was represented by TUPAS. Prior to the expiration of the CBAs for Makati and Alabang/Cabuyao, UFE submitted to the company a list of CBA proposals. The company, on the other hand, expressed its readiness to negotiate a new CBA for Makati and Alabang/Cabuyao units but reserved the negotiation for Cagayan de Oro and Cebu-Davao considering that the issue of representation for the latter units was not yet settled. On June 10, 1987 and July 28, 1987, UFE was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of Cagayan de Oro and Cebu/Davao units, respectively.

On September 14, 1987, the Company terminated from employment all UFE Union officers, headed by its president, Mr. Manuel Sarmiento, and all the members of the negotiating panel for instigating and knowingly participating in a strike staged at the Makati, Alabang, Cabuyao and Cagayan de Oro on September 11, 1987 without any notice of strike filed and a strike vote obtained for the purpose.

On September 21, 1987, the union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated January 12, 1988, upheld the validity of the dismissal of said union officers. The decision was later on affirmed by the respondent NLRC en banc, on November 2, 1988.

Respondent company contends that, "with the dismissal of UFE officers including all the members of the union negotiating panel as later on confirmed by the NLRC en banc, said union negotiating panel thus ceased to exist and its former members divested of any legal personality, standing and capacity to act as such or represent the union in any manner whatsoever."cralaw virtua1aw library

The union officers, on the other hand, asserted their authority to represent the regular rank-and-file employees of Nestle, Philippines, being the duly elected officers of the union.

In the meantime, private respondent sought guidelines from the Department of Labor on how it should treat letters from several splinter groups claiming to have possessed authority to negotiate in behalf of the UFE. It is noteworthy that aside from the names of the negotiating panel submitted by one UFE officials, three (3) other groups in the Nestle plant in Cabuyao and two groups in the Makati office have expressed a desire to bargain with management professing alleged authorization from and by the general membership. These groups however, it must be noted, belong to just one (1) union, the UFE.

In a letter dated August 20, 1988, BLR Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja advised:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any attempt on the part of management to directly deal with any of the factions claiming to have the imprimatur of the majority of the employees, or to recognize any act by a particular group to adopt the deadlock counter proposal of the management, at this stage, would be most unwise. It may only fan the fire." (Rollo, pp. 61-62)

On March 20, 1988 and August 5, 1988, the company concluded separate CBAs with the general membership of the union at Cebu/Davao and Cagayan de Oro units, respectively. The workers thereat likewise conducted separate elections of their officers.

Assailing the validity of these agreements, the union filed a case of ULP against the company with the NLRC-NCR Arbitration Branch on November 16, 1988.

Efforts to resolve the dispute amicably were taken by the NCMB but yielded negative result because of the irreconcilable conflicts of the parties on the matter of who should represent and negotiate for the workers.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

On October 18, 1988, petitioner filed a motion asking the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the dispute of deadlock in collective bargaining between the parties. On October 28, 1988, Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon certified to the NLRC the said dispute between the UFE and Nestle, Philippines, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, above premises considered, this office hereby certifies the sole issue of deadlock in CBA negotiations affecting the Makati, Alabang and Cabuyao units to the National Labor Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration.

"The NLRC is further directed to call all the parties immediately and resolve the CBA deadlock within twenty (20) days from submission of the case for resolution." (Rollo, p. 225)

On June 5, 1989, the Second Division of the NLRC promulgated a resolution granting wage increase and other benefits to Nestle’s employees, ruling on non-economic issues, as well as absolving the private respondent of the Unfair Labor Practice charge. The dispositive portion states as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, as aforestated, the parties are hereby ordered to execute and implement through their duly authorized representatives a collective bargaining agreement for a duration of five (5) years from promulgation of this Resolution.

"SO ORDERED." (Rollo, p. 180)

Petitioner finds said resolution to be inadequate and accordingly, does not agree therewith. It filed a motion for reconsideration, which was, however, denied on August 8, 1989.

Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Petitioner originally raised 13 errors committed by the public Respondent. However, in its Urgent Manifestation and Motion dated September 24, 1990, petitioner limited the issues to be resolved into six (6). Thus, only the following shall be dealt with in this resolution:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE NLRC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN RENDERING THE ASSAILED RESOLUTION, THE SAME BEING RENDERED ONLY BY A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT AND NOT BY EN BANC;

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT NLRC SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CBA TO BE SIGNED BY THE PARTIES SHALL COVER SOLELY THE BARGAINING UNIT CONSISTING OF ALL REGULAR RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY AT MAKATI, ALABANG AND CABUYAO;

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT NLRC HAD ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS IN FACT AND IN LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THE CBA IS EFFECTIVE ONLY UPON THE PROMULGATION OF THE ASSAILED RESOLUTION;

4. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT HAD SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER’S DEMAND FOR A CONTRACT SIGNING BONUS AND IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE LONG PRACTICE AND TRADITION IN THE COMPANY WHICH AMOUNT TO DIMINUTION OF EMPLOYEES BENEFITS;

5. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE UNION’S DEMAND FOR A "MODIFIED UNION SHOP" SECURITY CLAUSE IN THE CBA AS ITS RULING CLEARLY COLLIDES WITH SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER;

6. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN ENTIRELY ABSOLVING THE COMPANY FROM THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE AND IN DISREGARDING THE SUBSTANTIAL INCRIMINATORY EVIDENCE RELATIVE THERETO; (p. 9, Petitioner’s Urgent Manifestation and Motion dated September 24, 1990).

Counsel for the private respondent company filed a motion for leave of court to oppose the aforesaid urgent manifestation and motion. It appearing that the allowance of said opposition would necessarily delay the early disposition of this case, the Court Resolved to DISPENSE with the filing of the same.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

We affirm the public respondent’s findings and rule as regards the issue of jurisdiction.

This case was certified on October 28, 1988 when existing rules prescribed that, it is incumbent upon the Commission en banc to decide or resolve a certified dispute. However, R.A. 6715 took effect during the pendency of this case. Aside from vesting upon each division the power to adjudicate cases filed before the Commission, said Act further provides that the divisions of the Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases within their respective territorial jurisdiction.

Section 5 of RA 6715 provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 5. Article 213 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, is further amended to read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Art. 213. National Labor Relations Commission. — There shall be a National Labor Relations Commission which shall be attached to the Department of Labor and Employment for program and policy coordination only, composed of (a) Chairman and fourteen (14) Members.

Five (5) members each shall be chosen from among the nominees of the workers and employers organization, respectively. The Chairman and the four (4) remaining members shall come from the public sector, with the latter to be chosen from among the recommendees of the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

Upon assumption into office, the members nominated by the workers and employers organizations shall divest themselves of any affiliation with or interest in the federation or association to which they belong.

The Commission may sit en banc or in five (5) divisions, each composed of three (3) members. The Commission shall sit en banc only for purposes of promulgating rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases before any of its divisions and regional branches and formulating policies affecting its administration and operations. The Commission shall exercise its adjudicatory and all other powers, functions and duties through its divisions. Of the five (5) divisions, the first and second divisions shall handle cases coming from the National Capital Region and the third, fourth and fifth divisions, cases from other parts of Luzon, from the Visayas and Mindanao, respectively. The divisions of the Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases within their respective territorial jurisdiction.

The concurrence of two (2) Commissioners of a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or resolution. Whenever the required membership in a division is not complete and the concurrence of two (2) commissioners to arrive at a judgment or resolution cannot be obtained, the Chairman shall designate such number of additional Commissioners from the other divisions as may be necessary.

The conclusions of a division on any case submitted to it for decision shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion. It shall be mandatory for the division to meet for purposes of the consultation ordained therein. A certification to this effect signed by the Presiding Commissioner of the division shall be issued, and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties.

The Chairman shall be the Presiding Commissioner of the first division, and the four (4) other members from the public sector shall be the Presiding Commissioners of the second, third, fourth and fifth divisions, respectively. In case of the effective absence or incapacity of the Chairman, the Presiding Commissioner of the second division shall be the Acting Chairman.

The Chairman, aided by the Executive Clerk of the Commission, shall have administrative supervision over the Commission and its regional branches and all its personnel, including the Executive Labor Arbiters and Labor Arbiters.

The Commission when sitting en banc, shall be assisted by the same Executive Clerk, and, when acting thru its Divisions, by said Executive Clerk for its First Division and four (4) other Deputy Executive Clerks for the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Divisions, respectively, in the performance of such similar or equivalent functions and duties as are discharged by the Clerk of Court and Deputy Clerks of Court of the Court of Appeals." (Emphasis supplied)

In view of the enactment of Republic Act 6715, the aforementioned rules requiring the Commission en banc to decide or resolve a certified dispute have accordingly been repealed. This is supported by the fact that on March 21, 1989, the Secretary of Labor, issued Administrative Order No. 36 (Series of 1989), which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"2. Effective March 21, 1989, the date of the effectivity of Republic Act 6715, the Commission shall cease holding en banc sessions for purposes of adjudicating cases and shall discharge their adjudicatory functions and powers through their respective Divisions."cralaw virtua1aw library

Contrary to the claim of the petitioner, the above-cited Administrative Order is valid, having been issued in accordance with existing legislation as the Secretary of Labor is clothed with the power to promulgate rules for the implementation of the said amendatory law.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Section 36 of R.A. 6715 provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Section 36. Rule-Making Authority. — The Secretary of Labor and Employment is hereby authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

Moreover, it is to be emphasized and it is a matter of judicial notice that since the effectivity of R.A. 6715, many cases have already been decided by the five (5) divisions of the NLRC. We find no legal justification in entertaining petitioner’s claim considering that the clear intent of the amendatory provision is to expedite the disposition of labor cases filed before the Commission. To rule otherwise would not be congruous to the proper administration of justice.

As to the second issue, the Court is convinced that the public respondent committed no grave abuse of discretion in resolving only the sole issue certified to by the Secretary and formulating a CBA which covers the bargaining units consisting of all regular rank-and-file employees of the respondent company at Makati, Alabang and Cabuyao only.

In its assailed resolution, public respondent stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A perusal of the records and proceedings of this case reveals that after the issuance by the Secretary of Labor of his Order dated 28 October 1988 certifying the dispute to Us, the Union filed an Urgent Manifestation seeking the modification of the certification order to include the Cebu Davao and Cagayan de Oro divisions, the employees/workers therein being all bonafide members of the Union which is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular rank-and-file workers of the company nationwide. Their non-inclusion in the certification order, the union argues, would give premium to the alleged unlawful act of the Company in entering into separate ‘Collective Bargaining Agreements’ directly with the workers thereat.

"In the same vein, the union manifested its intention to file a complaint for ULP against the company and its officers responsible for such act, which it eventually did.

"Considering that the Union had reserved the right to prosecute the Company and its officers responsible for the alleged unlawful execution of the CBA directly with the union members in Cagayan de Oro and Cebu/Davao units, as it has in fact filed a case which is now pending with our Arbitration Branch, the issue as to whether such acts constitute ULP is best heard and decided separately from the certified case, not only because of the evidentiary need to resolve the issue, but also because of the delay that may ensue in the resolution of the present conflict.

"Furthermore, the consolidation of the issue with the instant case poses complicated questions regarding venue and joinder of parties. We feel that each of the issues propounded by the parties shall be better dealt with separately according to its own merits.

"Thus, We rule to resolve the sole issue in dispute certified to this Commission, i.e., the deadlock in the collective bargaining negotiations in Cabuyao/Alabang and Makati units." (Rollo, pp. 174-176)

We agree. Public respondent’s resolution is proper and in full compliance with the order of the Secretary of Labor. The concomittant delay that will result in resolving petitioner’s motion for the modification of the certification order to determine whether to include Cebu/Davao and Cagayan de Oro Divisions or not will defeat the very purpose of the Secretary of Labor’s assumption of jurisdiction and his subsequent certification order for compulsory arbitration.

The assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor over labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest is in the nature of a police power measure. It cannot be denied that the private respondent is engaged in an undertaking affected with public interest being one of the largest manufacturers of food products. The compelling consideration of the Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction is the fact that a prolonged strike or lockout is inimical to the national economy and thus, the need to implement some measures to suppress any act which will hinder the company’s essential productions is indispensable for the promotion of the common good. Under this situation, the Secretary’s certification order for compulsory arbitration which was intended for the immediate formulation of an already delayed CBA was proper.

Corollarily, the NLRC was thereby charged with the task of implementing the certification order for compulsory arbitration. As the implementing body, its authority did not include the power to amend the Secretary’s order (University of Santo Tomas v. National Labor Relations Commission, UST Faculty Union, G.R. No. 89920, October 18, 1990).cralawnad

For the same reason, We rule that the prayer to declare the respondent company guilty of acts of unfair labor practice when it allegedly resorted to practices designed to delay the collective bargaining negotiations cannot be subsumed in this petition, it being beyond the scope of the certification order.

Petitioner argues that because of the public respondent’s actuation in this regard, it committed grave abuse of discretion as it allowed multiplicity of suits and splitting causes of action which are barred by procedural rule.

We cannot subscribe to this argument. In the recent case of the Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court had occasion to define what a compulsory arbitration is. In said case, this Court stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When the consent of one of the parties is enforced by statutory provisions, the proceeding is referred to as compulsory arbitration In labor cases, compulsory arbitration is the process of settlement of labor disputes by a government agency which has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is binding on all the parties. (G.R. No. 55159, 22 Dec. 89)."cralaw virtua1aw library

When sitting in a compulsory arbitration certified to by the Secretary of Labor, the NLRC is not sitting as a judicial court but as an administrative body charged with the duty to implement the order of the Secretary. Its function only is to formulate the terms and conditions of the CBA and cannot go beyond the scope of the order. Moreover, the Commission is further tasked to act within the earliest time possible and with the end in view that its action would not only serve the interests of the parties alone, but would also have favorable implications to the community and to the economy as a whole. This is the clear intention of the legislative body in enacting Art. 263 paragraph (g) of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 27 of R.A. 6175, which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(g) When in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or lockout employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same. (Emphasis supplied)

In view of the avowed but limited purpose of respondent’s assumption of jurisdiction over this compulsory arbitration case, it cannot be faulted in not taking cognizance of other matters that would defeat this purpose.

As regards the third issue raised by petitioner, this Court finds the provisions of Article 253 and Article 253-A of the Labor Code as amended by R.A. 6715 as the applicable laws, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Art. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement. — When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.

Art. 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. — Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. Any agreement on such other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties shall agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof . In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the collective bargaining agreement, the parties may exercise their rights under this Code." (Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the foregoing, this Court upholds the pronouncement of the NLRC holding the CBA to be signed by the parties effective upon the promulgation of the assailed resolution. It is clear and explicit from Article 253-A that any agreement on such other provisions of the CBA shall be given retroactive effect only when it is entered into within six (6) months from its expiry date. If the agreement was entered into outside the six (6) month period, then the parties shall agree on the duration of the retroactivity thereof.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

The assailed resolution which incorporated the CBA to be signed by the parties was promulgated June 5, 1989, and hence, outside the 6 month period from June 30, 1987, the expiry date of the past CBA. Based on the provision of Section 253-A, its retroactivity should be agreed upon by the parties. But since no agreement to that effect was made, public respondent did not abuse its discretion in giving the said CBA a prospective effect. The action of the public respondent is within the ambit of its authority vested by existing laws.

In assailing the public respondent’s actuation, the Union cited the case of Villar v. Inciong (121 SCRA 444) where this Court ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . While petitioners were charged for alleged commission of acts of disloyalty inimical to the interests of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU in the Resolution of February 14, 1977 of the Amigo-Employees Union-PAFLU and on February 15, 1977, PAFLU and the company entered into and concluded a new collective bargaining agreement, petitioners may not escape the effects of the security clause under either the old CBA or the new CBA by claiming that the old CBA had expired and that the new CBA cannot be given retroactive enforcement. To do so would be to create a gap during which no agreement would govern, from the time the old contract expired to the time a new agreement shall have been entered into with the union . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the aforecited case, the Court only pointed out that, it is not right for union members to argue that they cannot be covered by the past and the new CBAs both containing the same closed-shop agreement for acts committed during the interregnum. What was emphasized by this Court is that in no case should there be a period in which no agreement would govern at all. But nowhere in the said pronouncement did We rule that every CBA contracted after the expiry date of the previous CBA must retroact to the day following such date. Hence, it is proper to rule that in the case at bar, the clear and unmistakable terms of Articles 253 and 253-A must be deemed controlling.

Articles 253 and 253-A mandate the parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period prior to the expiration of the old CBA and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. Consequently, there being no new agreement reached, the automatic renewal clause provided for by the law which is deemed incorporated in all CBAs, provides the reason why the new CBA can only be given a prospective effect.

Petitioner claims that because of the prospective effect of the CBA, union members were deprived of substantial amount of monetary benefits which they could have enjoyed had the CBA be given retroactive effect. This would include backwages, the immediate effects of the mandated wage increase on the fringe benefits such as the 13th and 14th month pay, overtime premium, and right to differential pay, leaves, etc. This Court, is not unmindful of these. Nevertheless, We are convinced that the CBA formulated by public respondent is fair, reasonable and just. Even if prospective in effect, said CBA still entitles the Nestle workers and employees reasonable compensation and benefits which, in the opinion of this Court, is one of the highest, if not the highest in the industry. Petitioner did not succeed in overcoming the presumption of regularity in the performance of the public respondent’s functions. Even if the resolution fell short of meeting the numerous demands of the union, the petitioner failed to establish that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in not giving the CBA a retrospective effect.

The fourth and fifth assignment of errors should be resolved jointly considering that they are the terms and conditions of the CBA.

According to petitioner, the terms and conditions thereof are inadequate, unreasonable, incompetitive and thus, prejudicial to the workers. It further decries public respondent’s alleged taking side with the private Respondent. Petitioner contends that in issuing the assailed resolutions, public respondent considered only the position of the private respondent and totally disregarded that of the petitioner. It further avers that the awards are bereft of any factual and legal basis.

Petitioner made so many claims and statements which were adopted and asserted without good ground. It fails to substantiate why, in not granting its demands for the inclusion in the CBA of a "Contract Signing Bonus" and a "Modified Union Shop Agreement," the assailed resolutions were erroneous and were drawn up arbitrarily and whimsically.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

In the case of Palencia v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 75763, August 21, 1987, 153 SCRA 247, We ruled that the findings of fact of the then Court of Industrial Relations (now NLRC), are conclusive and will not be disturbed. Thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Following a long line of decisions this Court has consistently declined to disturb the findings of fact of the then Court of Industrial Relations whose functions the NLRC now performs. [Pambusco Employees Union Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 68 Phil. 591 (1939); Manila Electric Co. v. National Labor Union, 70 Phil. 617 (1940); San Carlos Milling Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 111 Phil. 323 (1961),1 SCRA 734; Philippine Educational Institution v. MLQSEA Faculty Assn., 135 Phil. 282 (1968), 26 SCRA 272; University of Pangasinan Faculty Union v. University of Pangasinan and NLRC, G.R. No. L-63122, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 691]. The findings of fact are conclusive and will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that there has been grave abuse of discretion. [Philippine Educational Institution v. MLQSEA Faculty Association, 26 SCRA 272, 276] and there being no indication that the findings are unsubstantiated by evidence [University of Pangasinan Faculty Union v. University of Pangasinan and NLRC, G.R. No. 63122, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 694, 704]."cralaw virtua1aw library

Moreover, the NLRC is in the best position to formulate a CBA which is equitable to all concerned. Because of its expertise in settling labor disputes, it is imbued with competence to appraise and evaluate the evidence and positions presented by the parties. In the absence of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of the respondent NLRC on the terms of the CBA should not be disturbed.

Taken as a whole, the assailed resolutions are after all responsive to the call of compassionate justice observed in labor law and the dictates of reason which is considered supreme in every adjudication.

ACCORDINGLY, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is DISMISSED. The Resolutions of the NLRC, dated June 5, 1989 and August 8, 1989 are AFFIRMED, except insofar as the ruling absolving the private respondent of unfair labor practice which is declared SET ASIDE.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., took no part.




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-1990 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 32945 : December 3, 1990.] MARIANO T. NASSER, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MALCOLM SARMIENTO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch I, AURORA RIVERA CANLAS, PATERNO R. CANLAS, and TOMAS CENTILLAS, Respondents. [G.R. No. 32946. December 3, 1990.] MARIANO T. NASSER, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PATERNO R. CANLAS, AURORA RIVERA-CANLAS, TOMAS CENTILLAS and THE CHIEF OF POLICE OF SAN ISIDRO, DAVAO ORIENTAL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 39430 : December 3, 1990.] FRANCISCO MANLAPAZ, DELFIN SANGCAP, DOMINGO SANGCAP, PEDRO CUNANAN, FAUSTO DE LA PENA and HONORATA DE LA PENA, Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE LORENZO R. MOSQUEDA, HON. JUDGE VIRGILIO CANIVEL, TEODORO RIVERA, PABLO RIVERA, RENATO RIVERA and BONIFACIO RIVERA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 55466 : December 3, 1990.] MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM H. QUASHA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 78778 : December 3, 1990.] 191 SCRA 814 LEONIDA CORONADO, FELIX BUENO, MELANIA RETIZOS, BERNARDINO BUENASEDA and JOVITA MONTEFALCON, Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and JUANA BUENO ALBOVIAS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 79560 : December 3, 1990.] 191 SCRA 823 ANDRES E. DITAN, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ASIAWORLD RECRUITMENT, INC., AND/OR INTRACO SALES CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 80904 : December 3, 1990.] 191 SCRA 830 BALTAZAR, PEDRO, URSULA, and DOMINGO, all surnamed PANTIG, Petitioners, vs. VENANCIO BALTAZAR, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 82115 : December 3, 1990.] 191 SCRA 836 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROMEO ORTIZ y BALLARES, Accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 84884 : December 3, 1990.] EULALIO M. RUIZ and ILUMINADA RUIZ, Petitioners, vs. HON. DOROTEO N. CANEBA, THE CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA AND/OR HIS DEPUTIES, ZENAIDA SANGALANG and ADOLFO CRUZ, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 87264 : December 3, 1990.] MARIANO DINGLASAN and FELICIDAD DINGLASAN, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. MARIA ALICIA M. AUSTRIA, Presiding Judge of Branch 159, Regional Trial Court, Pasig, Metro Manila, National Capital Judicial Region, The GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, and CONCEPCION T. TINIO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 89545 : December 3, 1990.] SPOUSES ROLANDO DOLORFINO and MONINA FULE, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SEVERO ALCOS and EFIGENIA DE LUNA-ALCOS, Respondents.

  • [UDK No. 9864 : December 3, 1990.] RUFINA VDA. DE TANGUB, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PRESIDING JUDGE of the [CAR] RTC, Branch 4, Iligan City, and SPOUSES DOMINGO and EUGENIA MARTIL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 58668 : December 4, 1990.] 192 SCRA 1 SANTIAGO ESCARTE, JR., ERNESTO VILLANUEVA, FELIXBERTO VILLANUEVA, and LOURDES VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES and TEODORO MEDINA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 71929 : December 4, 1990.] 192 SCRA 9 ALITALIA, Petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and FELIPA E. PABLO, Respondents.

  • 192 SCRA 21 CONSOLACION VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, vs. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, JESUS BERNAS and REMEDIOS Q. BERNAS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 80505 : December 4, 1990.] 192 SCRA 28 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIO TANDOY y LIM, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 80791 : December 4, 1990.] 192 SCRA 34 PEOPLE'S FINANCING CORP. and ENRIQUE V. ARCENAS, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Sixteenth Division), GAUDIOSO MANLIGUEZ and PURIFICACION MANLIGUEZ, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 86586 : December 4, 1990.] 192 SCRA 42 NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE TEODORO P. REGINO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 84, QUEZON CITY and CONSTRUCTION SERVICES OF AUSTRALIA-PHILIPPINES INC., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 86889 : December 4, 1990.] 192 SCRA 51 LUZ FARMS, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 88177 : December 4, 1990.] 192 SCRA 84 DOLORES A. PAREDES, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND REMEDIOS A. AMOR, Respondents. [G.R. No. 89530 : December 4, 1990.] 192 SCRA 84 DOLORES A. PAREDES, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD AND REMEDIOS A. AMOR, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 93054 : December 4, 1990.] 192 SCRA 100 Cordillera Regional Assembly Member ALEXANDER P. ORDILLO, (Banaue), Ifugao Provincial Board Member CORAZON MONTINIG, (Mayoyao), Former Vice-Mayor MARTIN UDAN (Banaue), Municipal Councilors MARTIN GANO, (Lagawe), and TEODORO HEWE, (Hingyon), Barangay Councilman PEDRO W. DULAG (Lamut); Aguinaldo residents SANDY B. CHANGIWAN, and DONATO TIMAGO; Lamut resident REY ANTONIO; Kiangan residents ORLANDO PUGUON, and REYNAND DULDULAO; Lagawe residents TOMAS KIMAYONG, GREGORIO DANGO, GEORGE B. BAYWONG, and VICENTE LUNAG; Hingyon residents PABLO M. DULNUAN and CONSTANCIO GANO; Mayoyao residents PEDRO M. BAOANG, LEONARDO IGADNA, and MAXIMO IGADNA; and Banaue residents PUMA-A CULHI, LATAYON BUTTIG, MIGUEL PUMELBAN, ANDRES ORDILLO, FEDERICO MARIANO, SANDY BINOMNGA, GABRIEL LIMMANG, ROMEO TONGALI, RUBEN BAHATAN, MHOMDY GABRIEL, and NADRES GHAMANG, Petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; The Honorable FRANKLIN M. DRILON, Secretary of Justice; Hon. CATALINO MACARAIG, Executive Secretary; The Cabinet Officer for Regional Development; Hon. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, Secretary of Budget and Management; and Hon. ROSALINA S. CAJUCOM, OIC, National Treasurer, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 30616 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 110 EUFRACIO D. ROJAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CONSTANCIO B. MAGLANA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 36827 : December 10, 1990.] THE DIRECTOR OF FOREST ADMINISTRATION, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, vs. HON. RAMON C. FERNANDEZ, HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR., and EMILIO A. GANCAYCO, ET AL., Respondents. [G.R. No. 56622 : December 10, 1990.] THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and THE DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Ninth Division), GREGORIO A. LEGASPI and VALENTINA CERVANIA, Respondents. [G.R. No. 70076 : December 10, 1990.] REYNALDA ESPEJO, BENITA GARLITOS and ENRIQUETA OXCIANO, Petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ANTONIO M. BELEN, as Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan Branch XXXVIII and ASTERIO SAURA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 44749 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 141 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MELVIN GIRON y SANTOS, Accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 50661 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 151 RUBEN DELFIN, BENITO DOLOSA, CORNELIO AGUILAR, ANASTACIO GORDOLA, CESAR PANALIGAN, LUIS VIESCA, VICENTE GUADAMOR, JUAN CAGATIN, SIMEON CHICA, REYNALDO CINCO, WILFREDO IPAS, SIMEON TAGAYONA, FLORENCIO SINAMBAN, FERMINIO DIEGO, POLICARPIO DILE, EDDIE DE CASTRO, AQUILINO CABILITASAN, CRISOGONO CANTERO, GUALBERTO REBUSTER, RODOLFO GATCHALIAN, ANGELITO DOMINGO, FERNANDO JOVER, RAFAEL SALCEDO, SIMON DIANA, BENJAMIN GONZALES, JR., BENIGNO ROJA, DEMETRIO SIMEON, JOSE TELAN, HILARIO VILLANUEVA, NICK FRANCISCO, PACIFICO DALIPE, EUPEMIO DALITE, ARTEMIO DE CASTRO, ISABELO RASTICA, ANECITO RASTICA, LAMBERTO NIETO, ESMERALDO TATEL, PASCUAL BATOCTOY, ESMENIO PATRICIO, ARMANDO DE GUZMAN, JESUS MALLARI, JOSE MALLARI, SULPICIO MALLARI, GENEROSO COS, AGAPITO ESPINOSA, VIRGILIO SEVA�ES, RICARDO MANZAN, OSCAR BENSOL, PABLO DIAGSAY, EMILIO DIAGSAY, PAULINO COMETA, MATERO COREA, BENJAMIN LACANARIA, GAUDY TIU, JOVENCIO AGUILAR, ROMULO POSADA, RICARDO POSIC, ALFONSO SALGADO, RICARDO TAGANAP, ARMANDO RAMIREZ, FELIPE RAMIRES, EDELBERTO BERNARDO, PONCIANO MONTILLA, JUAN MONTILLA, IGNACIO PANCHITO, JEORGE SERRAN, VICTOR IGNIS, LUCAS IGAT, BARTOLOME MAGDAEL, AUGUSTO ROSALINAS, RAFAEL SOCITO, JORGE CO, LUCINO WAGAN, CELSO BARADA, WINSTON DIENZO, PAULINO SANCHEZ, ELESEO SANCHES, CONRADO SANCHES, GENEROSO ANTONIO, AGUSTIN LOPEZ, RUDY SOCITO, SEGUNDO SOCITO, JOAQUIN PARAS, DOMINADOR BUTAHON, GERMOGENES GINGCO, HONORIO DETOITO, ELIGIO MENDOZA, RUBEN QUITORIANO, LEON DELA CRUZ, PACITO SALES, ANTONIO CEMANES, IRENEO LUBUGIN, FORTUNATO MATO, ROMEO MERIC, ALBERTO GALLO, MELCHOR SALGADO, SIMEON QUIJANO, ANTONIO CARAAN, CARLITO GUZMAN, ALBERTO SALMON, FELIMON TAN, FERNANDO FAUSTINO, CONRADO DAVID, REYNALDO NOLASCO, ANTONIO NIETO, JAIME CAMACHO, ALBERTO PANGLAO, ROSAURO GANAC, ALFREDO ARCABIO, PEDRO MANASALA, VICENTE BELARMINO, ROMULO SIOCO, SEVERINO ATIENZA, JR., RUFO ABALOS, JESUS POSADA, ALBINO BACARRO, ERNESTO DAJAY, WILFREDO VILLALON, CELESTINO BACARRO, MANUEL TOLENTINO, ERNESTO ANTONIO, OSCAR ABUNDIO, ZOSIMO IJARES, RUBEN ARISTORENAS, GAUDENCIO CASTILLO, DOMINGO DELA TORRE, DANILO RONCADA, RAFEL PUPA, ALFONSO SAPINORO, LUISITO JACRIQUE, MARCELINO BESA, ANSELMO DATELES, ALBERTO PALCULAN, BIENVENIDO FUENSALIDA AND JOSE ORZAL, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. AMADO G. INCIONG in his capacity as Deputy Minister of Labor; NLRC Commissioners DIEGO ATIENZA, CLETO VILLATUYA and GERONIMO QUADRA; ATLANTIC CONTAINER CORPORATION; INLAND INDUSTRIES, INC., LAZARO ARRIOLA, BIENVENIDO KATALBAS, AURORA JEREZA, GOSHI DE YULO AND PAZ YULO AND ROBERTO JACINTO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 55361 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 163 SPOUSES TEOFILO ERCILLO and TERESITA ERCILLO, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES LUTGARDA CIFRA and BENJAMIN CIFRA, SR., represented by their son and attorney-in-fact, BENJAMIN CIFRA, JR., and HON. JOSE P. CASTRO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 55613 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 169 ERNESTO DICHOSO, Petitioner, vs. The HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and TEODOLFO RAMOS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 56620 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 177 FILIPINAS MILLS, INC., BUENAVENTURA TAN and VIRGINIA DUMLAO-TAN, Petitioners, vs. HON. ABELARDO M. DAYRlT, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch II, ASSOCIATED CITIZENS BANK and OSCAR V. ATAYDE, in his capacity as the Deputy Sheriff of the CFI-Manila, Branch II, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 69863-65 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 183 LINO BROCKA, BENJAMIN CERVANTES, COSME GARCIA, RODOLFO SANTOS, VALENTINO SALIPSIP, RICARDO VEGA, ERIC MARIANO, JOSE EMMANUEL OYALES, RONNIE MATTA, ALFREDO VIAJE, RUBEN EUGENIO, REYNALDO ORTIZ, ORLANDO ORTIZ, NOEL REYES, EDUARDO IMPERIAL, NESTOR SARMIENTO, FRANCO PALISOC, VIRGILIO DE GUZMAN, ALBERTO REYES, JESSIE PINILI, ROMULO AUGUIS, DOMINADOR RESURRECION III, RONNIE LAYGO, ROSAURO ROQUE, CLARENCE SORIANO, OCTAVO DEPAWA, CARLITO LA TORRE, SEVERNO ILANO, JR., DOMINGO CAJIPE, ALAN ALEGRE, RAMON MARTINEZ, MA. GILDA HERNANDEZ, EDNA P. VILLANUEVA, DOLLY S. CANU, MELQUIADES C. ATIENZA, ELIGIO P. VERA CRUZ, ROGER C. BAGAN, ABUNDIO M. CALISTE, Petitioners, vs. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, MAJ. GENERAL FIDEL V. RAMOS, BRIG. GENERAL PEDRO BALBANERO, COL. ABAD, COL. DAWIS, SERGIO APOSTOL, P/LT, RODOLFO M. GARCIA and JUDGE RICARDO TENSUAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 74762 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 191 COMMERCIAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONERS, SECOND DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, and PEDRO UMLAS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 78163 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 199 ANGELINA P. SANTIAGO, Petitioner, vs. The Honorable DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY and HI-CEMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 79962 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 209 LUCIO R. CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND CONRADO Q. SALONGA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 80397 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 224 S & A GAISANO INCORPORATED, CANUTO CUPIN, represented by his son Salvador P. Cupin as Attorney-in-Fact; VICENTE CUPIN; EVARISTO CUPIN, represented by his wife Marites R. Cupin as Attorney-in-Fact; RAMON CUPIN; FE CUPIN and BUENAVENTURA CUPIN, both represented by their brother Ramon Cupin as Attorney-in-Fact, Petitioners, vs. HON. VICENTE A. HIDALGO, Executive and Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Butuan City and Agusan del Norte; Branch V, Region X; VICTOR CHAN; ATTY. ARTURO RICAFORTE, in his capacity as Register of Deeds of Butuan City; CITY ENGINEER VICTORIOSO GO, in his capacity as National Building Official of Butuan City, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 82215 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 232 ANTIPAZ PRESCO y PARAS, ANTONIO AMORES y PARAS, and ANSELMA PARAS, Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MARIANO UMALI, Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 25, Trece Martires City, HON. EDWINA P. MENDOZA, Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of General Trias, Cavite, MODESTO PARAS, and SIMPLICIO SANCHEZ, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 82374 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 242 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ERNESTO AVILA y MENDOZA AND JOHN DOE, Accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 82495 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 246 ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. HON. SECRETARY SEDFREY ORDO�EZ (Public Respondent) and ALFREDO CHING (Private Respondent), Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. 84132-33 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 257 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND NEW AGRIX, INC., Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF and GODOFREDO QUILING, in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Calamba, Laguna, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 85531 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 266 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AMANDO TASARRA and ABELARDO TASARRA, Accused-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 89988 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 274 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LYDIA RAMA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 91041 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 277 JOSE A. SADDUL, JR., Petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • [A.M. No. P-86-32 : December 10, 1990.] 192 SCRA 288 ALFREDO LLANES, complainant, vs. GAUDIOSO BORJA, DEPUTY SHERIFF, RTC, BRANCH 19, NAGA CITY, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 31688 : December 17, 1990.] 192 SCRA 296 DIRECTOR OF LANDS, DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN P. AQUINO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Abra, Second Judicial District and ABRA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 68514 : December 17, 1990.] 192 SCRA 305 TRADERS ROYAL BANK, Petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and HON. GREGORIO S. CENDA�A, in his capacity as DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL MEDIA PRODUCTION CENTER (NMPC), Respondents

  • [G.R. No. 71589 : December 17, 1990.] 192 SCRA 315 CAGAYAN DE ORO COLISEUM, INC., Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, represented by Deputy Minister VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR. and ANGEL CHAVES, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 76303 : December 17, 1990.] 192 SCRA 320 DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES FRANCISCO K. REDOR and ANGELITA CASTRO, and HON. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXVII, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 78623 : December 17, 1990.] 192 SCRA 326 DR. OFELIA P. TRISTE, Petitioner, vs. LEYTE STATE COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, namely: Hon. Lourdes R. Quisumbing, Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and Chairman of the Board and/or Dr. Minda C. Sutaria as the authorized representative; Dr. Purificacion M. Flores, President of the Leyte State College and Vice-Chairman of the Board; Director Venancio Baclagon, National Economic and Development Authority, Regional Office No. VIII and Member of the Board; HON. SEDFREY A. ORDO�EZ, Secretary of Justice and Chairman of the Review Committee under Executive Order No. 17; and DR. CRES V. CHAN-GONZAGA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 83530 : December 18, 1990.] 192 SCRA 342 CRISTITO AUSTRIA y RODIS, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 93867 : December 18, 1990.] 192 SCRA 358 SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., Petitioner, vs. HAYDEE B. YORAC, in her capacity as ACTING CHAIRPERSON of the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. Nos. 95203-05 : December 18, 1990.] 192 SCRA 363 SENATOR ERNESTO MACEDA, Petitioner, vs. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD (ERB); MARCELO N. FERNANDO, ALEJANDRO B. AFURONG; REX V. TANTIONGCO; and OSCAR E. ALA, in their collective official capacities as Chairman and Members of the Board (ERB), respectively; CATALINO MACARAIG, in his quadruple official capacities as Executive Secretary, Chairman of Philippine National Oil Company; Office of the Energy Affairs, and with MANUEL ESTRELLA, in their respective official capacities as Chairman and President of the Petron Corporation; PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; with CESAR BUENAVENTURA and REY GAMBOA as chairman and President, respectively; CALTEX PHILIPPINES with FRANCIS ABLAN, President and Chief Executive Officer; and the Presidents of Philippine Petroleum Dealer's Association, Caltex Dealer's Co., Petron Dealer's Asso., Shell Dealer's Asso. of the Phil., Liquefied Petroleum Gas Institute of the Phils., any and all concerned gasoline and petrol dealers or stations; and such other persons, officials, and parties, acting for and on their behalf; or in representation of and/or under their authority, Respondents. [G.R. Nos. 95119-21 : December 18, 1990.] 192 SCRA 363 OLIVER O. LOZANO, Petitioner, vs. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD (ERB), PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CALTEX (PHIL.), INC., and PETRON CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 95263 : December 18, 1990.] 192 SCRA 374 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JUVENAL KYAMKO, Accused-Appellant.

  • [A.C. No. 2756 : December 18, 1990.] 192 SCRA 381 PRUDENTIAL BANK, Petitioner, vs. BENJAMIN M. GRECIA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 44167 : December 19, 1990.] 192 SCRA 388 JULITA FRANCISCO and her husband, HERMENEGILDO TANKENKO, and RESTITUTO FRANCISCO and his wife, FELISA ABEJO, Petitioners, vs. CRISPIN V. BAUTISTA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan; FRANCISCA FRANCISCO, MAXIMA FRANCISCO and FRANCISCO FRANCISCO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. 88710-13 : December 19, 1990.] 192 SCRA 396 UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES (UFE), MANUEL L. SARMIENTO, BENJAMIN M. ALTAREJOS, RODOLFO D. PAGLINAWAN, CARMELITA G. NUQUI, CORAZON Y SAZON, RODRIGO P. LUCAS, RUDOLPH C. ARMAS, EDUARDO A. ABELLA, ANGEL A. CANETE, JUANITO T. CAPILI, ADOLFO S. CASTILLO, JR., PONCIANO A. CARINGAL, ERIBERTO S. LEONARDO, ADELAIDA B. MIRA, EUGENIA C. NU�EZ, PAZ B. SAN JOSE, VENUSITO S. SOLIS, EMMANUEL S. VILLENA, ALFONSO R. RICAFRENTE, MELANIO C. LANTIN, AMADOR M. MONTOJO, RODOLFO M. MUNSOD, RENATO P. DIAZ, RODRIGO M. URGELLES, CARLOS B. SAN JOSE, EUSTAQUIO E. BUNYI, NELSON P. CENTENO, SOTERO A. GACUTAN, GUILLERMO G. DE BORJA, DIONISIO H. NIPALES, EUGENIO S. SAN PEDRO, MANUEL DELA FUENTE, CARLO MEDINA, CESAR B. PONCE, JORGE B. CASTRO, JR., RICARDO AREVALO, REY M. BEO, FELIX ESGUERRA, REYNALDO ALMENANZA, MELITON C. ROXAS (as represented by his surviving spouse, MA. CORAZON ROXAS), ROMEO A. ARANDELA, ISIDRO A. NATIVIDAD, EMILIANO M. SAYAO, CELSO J. CENIDO, PAUL C. MEJARES, SILVERIO C. PAMPANG, DIONISIO S. CANLOBO, GILBERT C. NOBLE, RODOLFO D. CALONG-CALONG, SR., PEPITO Q. QUITLONG, DIONISIO C. COMPLETO, ANTONIO T. AVELINO, ANGELITO PAYABYAB, ISAIAS A. RIEZA, DEODITO M. BELARMINO, QUEZON G. MATEO, CARLITO PRE, CIPRIANO P. LUPEBA, EFREN P. DINSAY, WILDON C. BARROS, SUSAN A. BERRO, MANUEL A. LAVIN, ROY U. BACONGUIS, JEROME T. FIEL, ANASTACIO G. CABALLERO, JR., ROGELIO E. RAIZ, JOSE T. ISIDTO, ANGELITO M. ANICIETE, RAUL ROBERTO C. NANQUIL, LIZA T. VILLANUEVA, CESAR S. CRUZ, REYNALDO L. CALIGUIA, ERNESTO M. SOLOMON, OSCAR G. AGUINALDO, DIEGO P. OLIVA, JAIME D. NILLAS, ELPIDIO A. HERMOCILLA, DANTE L. ESCOSURA, FEDERICO P. CONTEMPRATO, LAURO C. MAKILING, RENATO O. MINDANAO, RAFAEL C. TURA AND QUINTIN J. PEDRIDO, JR., Petitioners, vs. NESTL� PHILIPPINES, INC., NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. EDUARDO G. MAGNO, HON. ZOSIMO T. VASALLO and HON. EVANGELINE S. LUBATON, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 91025 : December 19, 1990.] 192 SCRA 414 UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 95478 : December 19, 1990.] 192 SCRA 430 EDUARDO ACOP, ROGER ALMENDAREZ, BIENVENIDO AMBRAY, BENITO ARELLANO, WILLIAM ARMENDARES, HERMINIO ARREZA, TEODORO ARREZA, PEREGRINO BANGUIS, MOISES BARENG, HIPOLITO BONGGOT, RAMON BUCALON, MELITO BUENAVIDES, FELIX CAGONG, LORENZO CALIWATAN, ANGEL CALUMBA, HENRY CARIAGA, GEORGE CASANO, REYNALDO CAPUTOLAN, FELOMENO CHATO, JULIETO CONGSIGNA, REYMUNDO CUADRA, EUFRONIO CUBERO, BIENVENIDO CURAYAG, RUDICASTRO CURAYAG, JOVENCIO DARAY, DAVID DE LEON, NELSON ECHIN, ROLANDO ESCATRON, BERTINO ESPINOLA, CRESENCIO FRANCIS, MATEO FRIAS, RODOLFO FUENTES, BENEDICTO GALLOGO, HERMANO GALOPE, JORGE GALVE, ERNESTO GONABO, VIRGILIO GRUMO, JEMELITO GUBAL, RICARDO GUILLEN, GENEROSO HERNANDEZ, JR., NELSON JABAY, EMILIO JACINTO, EMELIANO JALA, JR., IGNACIO JURALBAR, ALFREDO LOMOLJO, CELESTINO LOMOLJO, EDUARDO LOPEZ, LUCIO LOPIO, SAMUEL LOREDO, NORBERTO LORIA, MARCOS LOSIS, MARIO LUENGAS, NICOLAS MAGHINAY, ROGELIO MATILDO, FLORANTE MIRANDA, ANACLETO MONTON, NARCISO MONTON, ERNESTO OROZCO, CHARLITO ORQUITA, MERLCHOR PANTO, CASIMIRO PEREGRINO, EDUARDO PLAZA, NELSON PLAZA, PAQUITO PLAZA, PEDRO PLAZA, FREDIOMIO QUI�ONES, PEPE RAMIREZ, JOEL REMEDIO, EDUARDO REVELLEZA, GERALDO ROSIL, JR., TEMESTOCLES RUBENAL, REMEGIO SABUSIDO, ROGER SOTES, BELTRANO SULLANO, JAIME SULLANO, ERNIE TACUGDOY, WENIFREDO TOCMO, SR., PAQUITO TRUGILLO, ANIOLITO URBIZTONDO, ROMARICO URIARTE DARIO ORQUIZA, BERTINO VALLEJO, FRANCISCO VEGA, CRESENCIO YPARRAGUIRRE, RUDY YPARUAGUIRRI and EDUARDO SACRAGON, SR., Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, (Fifth Division), SURIGAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (SUDECOR) and RET. GEN. REYNALDO G. DILAN, Vice President for Field Operations & Administration, Respondents.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-89-380 : December 19, 1990.] 192 SCRA 434 EFREN JAVIER and PEDRO JAVIER, Complainants, vs. JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 46198 : December 20, 1990.] 192 SCRA 445 DOMINGO REYES, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE SERAFIN

  • [G.R. No. 53556 : December 20, 1990.] 192 SCRA 454 LILIA AGUIRRE, GENATO AGUIRRE and BENITO AGRAVA, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LEYTE, BRANCH III, EDUARDO TAMPIL and LETICIA A. TAMPIL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 72019 : December 20, 1990.] 192 SCRA 459 WORLD MACHINE ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND J.R. LITHOPLATES, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 81835 : December 20, 1990.] 192 SCRA 469 ROMEO J. ORDO�EZ, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. ALFREDO J. GUSTILO, in his capacity as presiding judge of Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch XVI, Cavite City, Municipality of Rosario, Cavite, former Mayor Calixto D. Enriquez of Rosario, Cavite, and Valeriano Espiritu of Mabolo, Bacoor, Cavite, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 82002 : December 20, 1990.] 192 SCRA 478 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN y DE DIOS, Accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. Nos. 86492-94 : December 20, 1990.] 192 SCRA 483 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEOPOLDO MONTANTE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 88114 : December 20, 1990.] 192 SCRA 492 PENTAGON SECURITY and INVESTIGATION AGENCY, Petitioner, vs. VICENTE T. JIMENEZ, ET AL., and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 89618 : December 20, 1990.] 192 SCRA 496 HON. RAUL S. MANGLAPUS, in his capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Petitioner, vs. HON. ANDRES E. MATIAS, Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 45) and GAVINO P. ABAYA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. 92029-30 : December 20, 1990.] 192 SCRA 507 NICANOR G. DE GUZMAN, JR., Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Former Fifth Division, HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, National Capital Judicial Region, Br. 48, Manila, and ENRIQUE KP. TAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 93394 : December 20, 1990.] 192 SCRA 514 FNCB FINANCE, Petitioner, vs. NAPOLEON ESTAVILLO, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 43659 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 521 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. FELICIDAD CARANDANG VILLALON and FEDERICO DE GUZMAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. 48535-36 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 533 KOH TIECK HENG, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 49454 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 548 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellant, vs. SALVADOR MONTEIRO, Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 49588 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 554 DIONG BI CHU, alias PATRICK CHANG, CHANG KA HEE and LU LIONG CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GREGORIO G. PINEDA, as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXI; JAIME NAVOA and MILAGROS DE LEOS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 63753-54 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 561 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GREGORIO BERINGUEL, ARTURO DEVARAS, ARTEMIO TULANG (at large), and RUFINO CAMINONG (at large), accused. GREGORIO BERINGUEL and ARTURO DEVARAS, Accused-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 76519 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 575 TIMOTEO POJAS, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MERCEDES GOZO-DALOLE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE, CITY OF TAGBILARAN, IRENEA POJAS, CESARIA LAGROSA and CORNELIA BETINOL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. 78551-52 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 579 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROLANDO MARCEDONIO y VILLANUEVA and ANTONIO MARCEDONIO y VILLANUEVA, Accused-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 78854 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 588 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SALVADOR V. LUTA�EZ alias "Jun Plementero", Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 79526 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 598 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (NAFTU), Petitioner, vs. MAINIT LUMBER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WORKERS UNION-UNITED LUMBER AND GENERAL WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES. (MALDECOWU-ULGWP), Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 80276 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 604 HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and THE HON. DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE, ALFREDO PIO DE RODA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 83257-58 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 612 OSIAS ACADEMY and MONICA R. DE CASTRO, Petitioners, vs. THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, CONCHITA MERCADO, NECITAS GACIS, EVELYN B. GARAIS, ESTRELLA GATON, EVA L. CAYETANO, TERESA G. BILAZON, SUSAN G. FUELLAS, ELVIRA D. GACIS, LOURDES CORREA, JULIETA A. MANALO, NILA G. GABELO and TEODORO GUANIZO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 83696 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 621 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DANTE BARTULAY Accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 84918 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 635 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ED FERNANDEZ AVILA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 87807 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 644 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ISAGANI DESLATE and ROMY FRANCISCO alias "Romeo Francisco", Accused, ISAGANI DESLATE, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 89407 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 649 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ISABELO SANCHEZ y PANDILI, Accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. Nos. 89682-83 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 655 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BENJAMIN HERICO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 91513 : December 21, 1990.] 192 SCRA 663 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GERONIMO GOLES, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 43491 : December 26, 1990.] 192 SCRA 674 ATTY. TEODORO V. CABILAN & ALEJANDRO A. PARALISAN, Petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE JOSE R. RAMOLETE & PROVINCIAL/CITY JAIL WARDEN of Cebu City, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 46210 : December 26, 1990.] 192 SCRA 680 RICARDO VILLAFLOR, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,** Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 61527 : December 26, 1990.] 192 SCRA 691 VICENTE GERARDO, VALENTINA GERARDO, CORNELIO GERARDO, BENJAMIN GERARDO, ANGEL GERARDO, & CONSTANTE GERARDO, Petitioners, vs. HON. FLORENTINO DE LA PE�A, Presiding Judge, Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, TERESA ANTONIO BELZA, VISITACION ANTONIO ADINA, ILUMINADA PASCUA ANTONIO, FELICIDAD BATACAN MATA, POLICARPO BATACAN, BASILIO BATACAN, ISABEL BANGLOY, IRINEO BANGLOY, EDUARDO BANGLOY, DIONICIO BANGLOY, DOMINGA BANGLOY, and ERMINIO BANGLOY, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 70556 : December 26, 1990.] 192 SCRA 698 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIO ABLAO, ISAGANI SACOP, LEOPOLDO DE GUZMAN, PEDRO LADIANA, ZENON SAMONTE, ALFREDO DEL MUNDO, BRUNO ABLAO, ISIDORO GALEMA, DANILO MERCADO, RUSTICO LIWANAG, FRANCISCO BALDEMECA, HECTOR SAMONTE and DAVID ABLAO, accused, MARIO ABLAO, ISAGANI SACOP, LEOPOLDO DE GUZMAN, PEDRO LADIANA, ZENON SAMONTE, and ALFREDO DEL MUNDO, Accused-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 77668 : December 26, 1990.] 192 SCRA 709 SPOUSES EUFRACIO ROJAS AND CONCEPCION ROJAS, Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AND SPOUSES FELIX E. MEDALLA AND DIONISIA PACATAN MEDALLA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 81039 : December 26, 1990.] 192 SCRA 725 INVESTMENT AND UNDERWRITING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, vs. COMPTRONICS PHILIPPINES, INC. and GENE V. TAMESIS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 85157 : December 26, 1990.] 192 SCRA 735 FRANCISCO JOSE, ANTONIO, ERLINDA, JOVITA, ARACELI, DOLORES, VIRGINIA, MARTA, LEDINIA, and ANITA, all surnamed RAMON JAO, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LAUREANA C. VDA. DE BAIRAN, as administratrix of the Estate of Pablo Bairan, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 88336 : December 26, 1990.] 192 SCRA 743 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 92625 : December 26, 1990.] 192 SCRA 768 JOSE ORDA and IMELDA LOZADA, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and GIL GALANG Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 32945 December 3, 1990 - MARIANO T. NASSER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39430 December 3, 1990 - FRANCISCO MANLAPAZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55466 December 3, 1990 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78778 December 3, 1990 - LEONIDA CORONADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79560 December 3, 1990 - ANDRES E. DITAN v. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80904 December 3, 1990 - BALTAZAR PANTIG, ET AL. v. VENANCIO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 82115 December 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO B. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. 84884 December 3, 1990 - EULALIO M. RUIZ, ET AL. v. DOROTEO N. CANEBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87264 December 3, 1990 - MARIANO DINGLASAN, ET AL. v. MARIA ALICIA M. AUSTRIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89545 December 3, 1990 - ROLANDO DOLORFINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • UDK No. 9864 December 3, 1990 - RUFINA VDA. DE TANGUB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58668 December 4, 1990 - SANTIAGO ESCARTE, JR., ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71929 December 4, 1990 - ALITALIA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74577 December 4, 1990 - CONSOLACION VILLANUEVA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80505 December 4, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO L. TANDOY

  • G.R. No. 80791 December 4, 1990 - PEOPLE’S FINANCING CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86586 December 4, 1990 - NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION v. TEODORO P. REGINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86889 December 4, 1990 - LUZ FARMS v. SEC. OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM

  • G.R. No. 88177 December 4, 1990 - DOLORES A. PAREDES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93054 December 4, 1990 - ALEXANDER P. ORDILLO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 30616 December 10, 1990 - EUFRACIO D. ROJAS v. CONSTANCIO B. MAGLANA

  • G.R. No. 36827 December 10, 1990 - DIRECTOR OF FOREST ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. RAMON C. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44749 December 10, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELVIN S. GIRON

  • G.R. No. 50661 December 10, 1990 - RUBEN DELFIN, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55361 December 10, 1990 - TEOFILO ERCILLO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55613 December 10, 1990 - ERNESTO DICHOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56620 December 10, 1990 - FILIPINAS MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. ABELARDO M. DAYRlT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69863-65 December 10, 1990 - LINO BROCKA, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74762 December 10, 1990 - COMMERCIAL MOTORS CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONERS, NLRC, SECOND DIVISION

  • G.R. No. 78163 December 10, 1990 - ANGELINA P. SANTIAGO v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79962 December 10, 1990 - LUCIO R. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80397 December 10, 1990 - S & A GAISANO INC., ET AL. v. VICENTE A. HIDALGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82215 December 10, 1990 - ANTIPAZ P. PRESCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82374 December 10, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. AVILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82495 December 10, 1990 - ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 84132-33 December 10, 1990 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85531 December 10, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMANDO TASARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89988 December 10, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYDIA RAMA

  • G.R. No. 91041 December 10, 1990 - JOSE A. SADDUL, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-86-32 December 10, 1990 - ALFREDO LLANES v. GAUDIOSO BORJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 31688 December 17, 1990 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. JUAN P. AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68514 December 17, 1990 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71589 December 17, 1990 - CAGAYAN DE ORO COLISEUM, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76303 December 17, 1990 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. FRANCISCO K. REDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78623 December 17, 1990 - OFELIA P. TRISTE v. LEYTE STATE COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83530 December 18, 1990 - CRISTITO R. AUSTRIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93867 December 18, 1990 - SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR. v. HAYDEE B. YORAC

  • G.R. Nos. 95203-05 December 18, 1990 - ERNESTO MACEDA v. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95263 December 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUVENAL KYAMKO

  • A.C. No. 2756 December 18, 1990 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. BENJAMIN M. GRECIA

  • G.R. No. 44167 December 19, 1990 - JULITA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. CRISPIN V. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88710-13 December 19, 1990 - UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES, ET AL. v. NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91025 December 19, 1990 - UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95478 December 19, 1990 - EDUARDO ACOP, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-380 December 19, 1990 - EFREN JAVIER, ET AL. v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 46198 December 20, 1990 - DOMINGO REYES v. SERAFIN E. CAMILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53556 December 20, 1990 - LILIA AGUIRRE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LEYTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72019 December 20, 1990 - WORLD MACHINE ENTERPRISES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81835 December 20, 1990 - ROMEO J. ORDOÑEZ v. ALFREDO J. GUSTILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82002 December 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. Nos. 86492-94 December 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO MONTANTE

  • G.R. No. 88114 December 20, 1990 - PENTAGON SECURITY, ET AL. v. VICENTE T. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89618 December 20, 1990 - RAUL S. MANGLAPUS v. ANDRES E. MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92029-30 December 20, 1990 - NICANOR G. DE GUZMAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93394 December 20, 1990 - FNCB FINANCE v. NAPOLEON ESTAVILLO

  • G.R. No. 43659 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIDAD CARANDANG VILLALON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 48535-36 December 21, 1990 - KOH TIECK HENG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49454 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MONTEIRO

  • G.R. No. 49588 December 21, 1990 - DIONG BI CHU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63753-54 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO BERINGUEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76519 December 21, 1990 - TIMOTEO POJAS v. MERCEDES GOZO-DALOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78551-52 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO MARCEDONIO

  • G.R. No. 78854 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR V. LUTAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 79526 December 21, 1990 - NATIONAL ASSO. OF FREE TRADE UNIONS v. MAINIT LUMBER DEVT. COMPANY WORKERS

  • G.R. No. 80276 December 21, 1990 - HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83257-58 December 21, 1990 - OSIAS ACADEMY, ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83696 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE BARTULAY

  • G.R. No. 84918 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ED FERNANDEZ AVILA

  • G.R. No. 87807 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI DESLATE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89407 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO P. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 89682-83 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN HERICO

  • G.R. No. 91513 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERONIMO GOLES

  • G.R. No. 43491 December 26, 1990 - TEODORO V. CABILAN, ET AL. v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46210 December 26, 1990 - RICARDO VILLAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61527 December 26, 1990 - VICENTE GERARDO, ET AL. v. FLORENTINO DE LA PEÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70556 December 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO ABLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77668 December 26, 1990 - EUFRACIO ROJAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81039 December 26, 1990 - INVESTMENT AND UNDERWRITING CORP. OF THE PHIL. v. COMPTRONICS PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85157 December 26, 1990 - FRANCISCO JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88336 December 26, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 92625 December 26, 1990 - JOSE ORDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 32945 December 3, 1990 - MARIANO T. NASSER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39430 December 3, 1990 - FRANCISCO MANLAPAZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55466 December 3, 1990 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78778 December 3, 1990 - LEONIDA CORONADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79560 December 3, 1990 - ANDRES E. DITAN v. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80904 December 3, 1990 - BALTAZAR PANTIG, ET AL. v. VENANCIO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 82115 December 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO B. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. 84884 December 3, 1990 - EULALIO M. RUIZ, ET AL. v. DOROTEO N. CANEBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87264 December 3, 1990 - MARIANO DINGLASAN, ET AL. v. MARIA ALICIA M. AUSTRIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89545 December 3, 1990 - ROLANDO DOLORFINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • UDK No. 9864 December 3, 1990 - RUFINA VDA. DE TANGUB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58668 December 4, 1990 - SANTIAGO ESCARTE, JR., ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71929 December 4, 1990 - ALITALIA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74577 December 4, 1990 - CONSOLACION VILLANUEVA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80505 December 4, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO L. TANDOY

  • G.R. No. 80791 December 4, 1990 - PEOPLE’S FINANCING CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86586 December 4, 1990 - NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION v. TEODORO P. REGINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86889 December 4, 1990 - LUZ FARMS v. SEC. OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM

  • G.R. No. 88177 December 4, 1990 - DOLORES A. PAREDES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93054 December 4, 1990 - ALEXANDER P. ORDILLO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 30616 December 10, 1990 - EUFRACIO D. ROJAS v. CONSTANCIO B. MAGLANA

  • G.R. No. 36827 December 10, 1990 - DIRECTOR OF FOREST ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. RAMON C. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44749 December 10, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELVIN S. GIRON

  • G.R. No. 50661 December 10, 1990 - RUBEN DELFIN, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55361 December 10, 1990 - TEOFILO ERCILLO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55613 December 10, 1990 - ERNESTO DICHOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56620 December 10, 1990 - FILIPINAS MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. ABELARDO M. DAYRlT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69863-65 December 10, 1990 - LINO BROCKA, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74762 December 10, 1990 - COMMERCIAL MOTORS CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONERS, NLRC, SECOND DIVISION

  • G.R. No. 78163 December 10, 1990 - ANGELINA P. SANTIAGO v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79962 December 10, 1990 - LUCIO R. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80397 December 10, 1990 - S & A GAISANO INC., ET AL. v. VICENTE A. HIDALGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82215 December 10, 1990 - ANTIPAZ P. PRESCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82374 December 10, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. AVILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82495 December 10, 1990 - ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 84132-33 December 10, 1990 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85531 December 10, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMANDO TASARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89988 December 10, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYDIA RAMA

  • G.R. No. 91041 December 10, 1990 - JOSE A. SADDUL, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-86-32 December 10, 1990 - ALFREDO LLANES v. GAUDIOSO BORJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 31688 December 17, 1990 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. JUAN P. AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68514 December 17, 1990 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71589 December 17, 1990 - CAGAYAN DE ORO COLISEUM, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76303 December 17, 1990 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. FRANCISCO K. REDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78623 December 17, 1990 - OFELIA P. TRISTE v. LEYTE STATE COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83530 December 18, 1990 - CRISTITO R. AUSTRIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93867 December 18, 1990 - SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR. v. HAYDEE B. YORAC

  • G.R. Nos. 95203-05 December 18, 1990 - ERNESTO MACEDA v. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95263 December 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUVENAL KYAMKO

  • A.C. No. 2756 December 18, 1990 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. BENJAMIN M. GRECIA

  • G.R. No. 44167 December 19, 1990 - JULITA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. CRISPIN V. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88710-13 December 19, 1990 - UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES, ET AL. v. NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91025 December 19, 1990 - UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95478 December 19, 1990 - EDUARDO ACOP, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-380 December 19, 1990 - EFREN JAVIER, ET AL. v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 46198 December 20, 1990 - DOMINGO REYES v. SERAFIN E. CAMILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53556 December 20, 1990 - LILIA AGUIRRE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LEYTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72019 December 20, 1990 - WORLD MACHINE ENTERPRISES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81835 December 20, 1990 - ROMEO J. ORDOÑEZ v. ALFREDO J. GUSTILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82002 December 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. Nos. 86492-94 December 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO MONTANTE

  • G.R. No. 88114 December 20, 1990 - PENTAGON SECURITY, ET AL. v. VICENTE T. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89618 December 20, 1990 - RAUL S. MANGLAPUS v. ANDRES E. MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92029-30 December 20, 1990 - NICANOR G. DE GUZMAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93394 December 20, 1990 - FNCB FINANCE v. NAPOLEON ESTAVILLO

  • G.R. No. 43659 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIDAD CARANDANG VILLALON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 48535-36 December 21, 1990 - KOH TIECK HENG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49454 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MONTEIRO

  • G.R. No. 49588 December 21, 1990 - DIONG BI CHU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63753-54 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO BERINGUEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76519 December 21, 1990 - TIMOTEO POJAS v. MERCEDES GOZO-DALOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78551-52 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO MARCEDONIO

  • G.R. No. 78854 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR V. LUTAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 79526 December 21, 1990 - NATIONAL ASSO. OF FREE TRADE UNIONS v. MAINIT LUMBER DEVT. COMPANY WORKERS

  • G.R. No. 80276 December 21, 1990 - HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83257-58 December 21, 1990 - OSIAS ACADEMY, ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83696 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE BARTULAY

  • G.R. No. 84918 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ED FERNANDEZ AVILA

  • G.R. No. 87807 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI DESLATE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89407 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO P. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 89682-83 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN HERICO

  • G.R. No. 91513 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERONIMO GOLES

  • G.R. No. 43491 December 26, 1990 - TEODORO V. CABILAN, ET AL. v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46210 December 26, 1990 - RICARDO VILLAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61527 December 26, 1990 - VICENTE GERARDO, ET AL. v. FLORENTINO DE LA PEÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70556 December 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO ABLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77668 December 26, 1990 - EUFRACIO ROJAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81039 December 26, 1990 - INVESTMENT AND UNDERWRITING CORP. OF THE PHIL. v. COMPTRONICS PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85157 December 26, 1990 - FRANCISCO JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88336 December 26, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 92625 December 26, 1990 - JOSE ORDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 32945 December 3, 1990 - MARIANO T. NASSER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39430 December 3, 1990 - FRANCISCO MANLAPAZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55466 December 3, 1990 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78778 December 3, 1990 - LEONIDA CORONADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79560 December 3, 1990 - ANDRES E. DITAN v. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80904 December 3, 1990 - BALTAZAR PANTIG, ET AL. v. VENANCIO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 82115 December 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO B. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. 84884 December 3, 1990 - EULALIO M. RUIZ, ET AL. v. DOROTEO N. CANEBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87264 December 3, 1990 - MARIANO DINGLASAN, ET AL. v. MARIA ALICIA M. AUSTRIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89545 December 3, 1990 - ROLANDO DOLORFINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • UDK No. 9864 December 3, 1990 - RUFINA VDA. DE TANGUB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58668 December 4, 1990 - SANTIAGO ESCARTE, JR., ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71929 December 4, 1990 - ALITALIA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74577 December 4, 1990 - CONSOLACION VILLANUEVA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80505 December 4, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO L. TANDOY

  • G.R. No. 80791 December 4, 1990 - PEOPLE’S FINANCING CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86586 December 4, 1990 - NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION v. TEODORO P. REGINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86889 December 4, 1990 - LUZ FARMS v. SEC. OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM

  • G.R. No. 88177 December 4, 1990 - DOLORES A. PAREDES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93054 December 4, 1990 - ALEXANDER P. ORDILLO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 30616 December 10, 1990 - EUFRACIO D. ROJAS v. CONSTANCIO B. MAGLANA

  • G.R. No. 36827 December 10, 1990 - DIRECTOR OF FOREST ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. RAMON C. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44749 December 10, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELVIN S. GIRON

  • G.R. No. 50661 December 10, 1990 - RUBEN DELFIN, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55361 December 10, 1990 - TEOFILO ERCILLO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55613 December 10, 1990 - ERNESTO DICHOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56620 December 10, 1990 - FILIPINAS MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. ABELARDO M. DAYRlT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69863-65 December 10, 1990 - LINO BROCKA, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74762 December 10, 1990 - COMMERCIAL MOTORS CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONERS, NLRC, SECOND DIVISION

  • G.R. No. 78163 December 10, 1990 - ANGELINA P. SANTIAGO v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79962 December 10, 1990 - LUCIO R. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80397 December 10, 1990 - S & A GAISANO INC., ET AL. v. VICENTE A. HIDALGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82215 December 10, 1990 - ANTIPAZ P. PRESCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82374 December 10, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. AVILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82495 December 10, 1990 - ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 84132-33 December 10, 1990 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85531 December 10, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMANDO TASARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89988 December 10, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYDIA RAMA

  • G.R. No. 91041 December 10, 1990 - JOSE A. SADDUL, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-86-32 December 10, 1990 - ALFREDO LLANES v. GAUDIOSO BORJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 31688 December 17, 1990 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. JUAN P. AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68514 December 17, 1990 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71589 December 17, 1990 - CAGAYAN DE ORO COLISEUM, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76303 December 17, 1990 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. FRANCISCO K. REDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78623 December 17, 1990 - OFELIA P. TRISTE v. LEYTE STATE COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83530 December 18, 1990 - CRISTITO R. AUSTRIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93867 December 18, 1990 - SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR. v. HAYDEE B. YORAC

  • G.R. Nos. 95203-05 December 18, 1990 - ERNESTO MACEDA v. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95263 December 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUVENAL KYAMKO

  • A.C. No. 2756 December 18, 1990 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. BENJAMIN M. GRECIA

  • G.R. No. 44167 December 19, 1990 - JULITA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. CRISPIN V. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88710-13 December 19, 1990 - UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES, ET AL. v. NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91025 December 19, 1990 - UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95478 December 19, 1990 - EDUARDO ACOP, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-380 December 19, 1990 - EFREN JAVIER, ET AL. v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 46198 December 20, 1990 - DOMINGO REYES v. SERAFIN E. CAMILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53556 December 20, 1990 - LILIA AGUIRRE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LEYTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72019 December 20, 1990 - WORLD MACHINE ENTERPRISES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81835 December 20, 1990 - ROMEO J. ORDOÑEZ v. ALFREDO J. GUSTILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82002 December 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. Nos. 86492-94 December 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO MONTANTE

  • G.R. No. 88114 December 20, 1990 - PENTAGON SECURITY, ET AL. v. VICENTE T. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89618 December 20, 1990 - RAUL S. MANGLAPUS v. ANDRES E. MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92029-30 December 20, 1990 - NICANOR G. DE GUZMAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93394 December 20, 1990 - FNCB FINANCE v. NAPOLEON ESTAVILLO

  • G.R. No. 43659 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIDAD CARANDANG VILLALON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 48535-36 December 21, 1990 - KOH TIECK HENG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49454 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MONTEIRO

  • G.R. No. 49588 December 21, 1990 - DIONG BI CHU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63753-54 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO BERINGUEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76519 December 21, 1990 - TIMOTEO POJAS v. MERCEDES GOZO-DALOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78551-52 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO MARCEDONIO

  • G.R. No. 78854 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR V. LUTAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 79526 December 21, 1990 - NATIONAL ASSO. OF FREE TRADE UNIONS v. MAINIT LUMBER DEVT. COMPANY WORKERS

  • G.R. No. 80276 December 21, 1990 - HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83257-58 December 21, 1990 - OSIAS ACADEMY, ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83696 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE BARTULAY

  • G.R. No. 84918 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ED FERNANDEZ AVILA

  • G.R. No. 87807 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI DESLATE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89407 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO P. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 89682-83 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN HERICO

  • G.R. No. 91513 December 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERONIMO GOLES

  • G.R. No. 43491 December 26, 1990 - TEODORO V. CABILAN, ET AL. v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46210 December 26, 1990 - RICARDO VILLAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61527 December 26, 1990 - VICENTE GERARDO, ET AL. v. FLORENTINO DE LA PEÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70556 December 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO ABLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77668 December 26, 1990 - EUFRACIO ROJAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81039 December 26, 1990 - INVESTMENT AND UNDERWRITING CORP. OF THE PHIL. v. COMPTRONICS PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85157 December 26, 1990 - FRANCISCO JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88336 December 26, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 92625 December 26, 1990 - JOSE ORDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.