Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > March 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 51143 March 22, 1990 - DOROTEO M. DE GUIA, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 51143. March 22, 1990.]

DOROTEO M. DE GUIA, ANTONIO GERONIMO, MARIA JAO, MARCOS MIRANDA, JOSEPH BELTRANO, LINA MENDOZA, MARIA CELESTINO, FLAVIANO DE LEON, ROSENDO DE LEON, FRANCISCO SANTOS, VIRGILIO DE LEON and BEN VALENZUELA, Petitioners, v. THE HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., Presiding Judge of Rizal, Branch XXVII, Pasay City, ANGELES J. MONTINOLA and PATRIA G. JALANDONI, represented by LOURDES J. DE LA PAZ, Judicial Guardian, Respondents.

[G.R. No. 51150. March 22, 1990.]

LORENZO BACALLA, FELIXBERTO BRIONES, REYNATO CARRIEDO, JAVIERTO CASTILLO, AMADO COLIBAO, FLAVIANO CRUZ, ROMULO DE LEON, ADELA GASGA, PACITA LONGSON, ENCARNACION MANANSALA, DOLORES MENDOZA, HERMINIO RODES, MARIO SANTOS, URBANO TANGONAN, GENOVEVO TERROBITAS and JOSE VALENZUELA, Petitioners, v. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Br. XXVII, at Pasay City, ANGELES J. MONTINOLA and PATRIA G. JALANDONI, represented by Lourdes de la Paz, Judicial Guardian, Respondents.

De Guia, Liwanag, Albano & Associates for petitioners in G.R. 51143.

Concepcion, Canta, Agag, Maglaya & Associates for petitioners in G.R. 51150.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; STIPULATION OF FACTS; CONSIDERED A JUDICIAL COMPROMISE AND IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. — The stipulation facts submitted by the parties was in effect a judicial compromise. As such, it was immediately executory (Art. 2037, Civil Code) for a judicial compromise has the force and effect of res judicata. "A judicial compromise has the force and effect of res judicata." (Binamira v. Ogan-Occena, 148 SCRA 677; Lopez v. Bermejo, 141 SCRA 5; M & M Management Aids, Inc. v. CA, 130 SCRA 255; Zagala v. Jimenez, 152 SCRA 147.) "Such a final and executory judgment cannot be modified or amended. If an amendment is to be made, it may consist only of supplying an omission, striking out a superfluity or interpreting an ambiguous phrase therein in relation to the body of the decision which gives it life (Republic v. Angeles, 41 SCRA 422; Central Bank v. CA, 61 SCRA 348). A compromise judgment should not be disturbed except for vices in consent or forgery." (Binamira v. Ogan-Occena, supra; Commercial Credit Corp. of Cagayan de Oro v. CA, Et Al., G.R. No. 78315, January 2, 1989.)

2. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF NON-FULFILLMENT OF THE TERMS OF A JUDICIAL COMPROMISE. — Since under the compromise, the petitioners’ occupancy of the leased premises would end on December 31, 1975, the right of the private respondents to enforce that undertaking of the petitioners-lessees and to eject them from the leased premises is long overdue. "A compromise agreement has the effect of res judicata even if not approved by the court." (Cochingyan, Jr. v. Cloribel, 76 SCRA 361.) "Non-fulfillment of the terms of the compromise justifies execution." (Barreras v. Hon. Garcia, Et Al., G.R. Nos. L-44715-16, January 26, 1989.) The Regional Trial Court did not commit a reversible error in ordering the petitioners to vacate the property in question.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; TRIAL COURTS CANNOT MAKE A CONTRACT FOR THE PARTIES. — The trial court’s decision was erroneous insofar as it fixed the duration of the lease of a period of three and a half (3-1/2) years from the filing of the ejectment complaint on May 17, 1973, or, up to October 17, 1976, instead of three (3) years from January 1, 1973, or up to December 31, 1975, as provided in the parties’ Second Stipulation of Facts. The trial court could only approve the agreement of the parties. It could not make a contract for them.


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


The petitioners were the defendants in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 2808 of the Municipal Court of Parañaque entitled, "Angeles J. Montinola and Patria G. Jalandoni, represented by Lourdes J. de la Paz, Judicial Guardian versus Herminigildo Rodes, Pacita Longson, Joseph Beltrano, Urbano Tangonan, Jose Valenzuela, Dolores Masilop, Felixberto Briones, Ben Valenzuela, Honorio Magundanao, Mario Santos, Andres Martin, Maria Gasga, Maria Jao, Rosendo de Leon, Linda Mendoza, Flaviano de Leon, Romulo de Leon, Virgilio de Leon, Marcos Miranda, Silvino Manansala, Dolores Mendoza, Francisco Santos, Genovevo Terrobitas, Antonio Geronimo, Lorenzo Bacalla, Javierto Castillo, Doroteo de Guia, Maria Celestino, Amado Galibao, Andres Cruz and Reynato Carriedo").

The ejectment case was filed on May 17, 1973. On January 25, 1974, the parties submitted the following Stipulation of Facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS, mentioned hereinafter, assisted by their attorneys, in order to abbreviate the proceedings, by way of simplifying the issues and doing away with some testimonial evidence, hereby submit the following stipulations and admissions of facts:chanrobles law library : red

"1. That the plaintiffs are the absolute and registered owners of a parcel of residential land located at Tambo, Parañaque, Rizal, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 78444 of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal, particularly described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, and that this ejectment suit was filed in Court at their instance.

"2. That the defendants are lessees of the above-mentioned property, having occupied the same since 1952 and paying rentals, therefor on a month-to-month basis, hence the lease is not for a definite period.

"3. That defendants’ residences were constructed by them in the premises with the express consent and approval of the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest.

"4. That the defendants had not defaulted in the payment of their monthly rentals and their subsequent non-payment was occasioned by plaintiffs’ refusal to accept their monthly dues, which however were duly consigned and deposited by them before the Honorable Court.

"5. That the plaintiffs made demands for the defendants to vacate the premises, as they need improvements for commercial purposes, as it is the plaintiffs’ intention to put up a market or supermarket in the premises.

"6. That the written notices made by the plaintiffs, thru their counsel, Atty. Filemon Flores, specifically requested the defendants to vacate the premises on or before the end of February, 1973.

"7. That because of the defendants’ refusal to vacate the premises, another written notice was sent to the defendants by the same lawyer, whereby they were given a last extension at the end of April, 1973, and to compensate them for the damages occasioned by the transfer of their houses the plaintiffs waived the payment of all rentals from November, 1972 up to and including April, 1973, and despite these notices the defendants continue to occupy the premises." (Emphasis ours; pp. 27-28, Rollo of G.R. No. 51150.)chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

On April 8, 1974, the parties submitted a Second Stipulation of Facts containing the following additional admissions:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"9. Plaintiffs entered a separate written contract with each of the defendants for the respective portion of the premises occupied by them which contract was executed on October 31, 1972 for a period of three years starting January 1, 1963 * and ends on December 31, 1975. A copy of the contract which is prepared by plaintiffs’ counsel and notarialized [sic] by him is hereto attached as Annex ‘A’ and forms integral part hereof.’

x       x       x


"11. Plaintiffs received lease rental from defendants Doroteo R. de Guia for the months of November and December, 1972." (Emphasis supplied; p. 35, Rollo of G.R. No. 51150.).

They prayed that both stipulations of facts be admitted in lieu of trial, and that the case be decided after the submission of their respective memoranda.

On July 7, 1976, the Municipal Trial Court of Parañaque rendered a decision fixing the period of the defendants’ lease for another period of three and a half (3-1/2) years computed from the filing of the complaint on May 17,1973, or up to October 17, 1976, and it authorized the plaintiffs to withdraw from the Clerk of Court the rentals deposited by the defendants. The latter, and all persons claiming interest in the premises, were ordered to vacate and surrender possession of the land to the plaintiffs upon the expiration of the period fixed by the court.

The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXVII-Pasay City, where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 5652-P entitled, "Angeles J. Montinola, Et. Al. v. Herminigildo Rodes, Et. Al."cralaw virtua1aw library

On January 26, 1979, the Court of First Instance affirmed in full the inferior court’s decision.

The defendants elevated the case to this Court on a petition for review, arguing that under P.D. No. 20, the lessors may not judicially eject them as their leases are for an indefinite period, and as they have religiously paid their rentals. They further argued that Articles 1682 and 1687 of the Civil Code authorizing the Court to fix a period when the lease is for an indefinite term, have also been suspended by P.D. No. 20.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The petition has no merit.

The verbal indefinite leases of the petitioners were converted into written lease agreements for a fixed period of three years from January 1, 1973 (or up to December 31, 1975) when they submitted to the trial court the Second Stipulation of Facts dated April 8, 1974, which provided that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"9. Plaintiffs entered a separate written contract with each of the defendants for the respective portion of the premises occupied by them, which contract was executed on October 31, 1972 for a period of three (3) years starting from January 1, 1963 ** and ends on December 31, 1965. *** A copy of the Contract which is prepared by plaintiffs’ counsel and notarialized [sic] by him is hereto attached as Annex ‘A’ and forms integral part hereof." (p 65, Rollo of G.R. No. 51150.)

The above stipulation was in effect a judicial compromise. As such, it was immediately executory (Art. 2037, Civil Code) for a judicial compromise has the force and effect of res judicata.

"A judicial compromise has the force and effect of res judicata." (Binamira v. Ogan-Occena, 148 SCRA 677; Lopez v. Bermejo, 141 SCRA 5; M & M Management Aids, Inc. v. CA, 130 SCRA 255; Zagala v. Jimenez, 152 SCRA 147.)

"Such a final and executory judgment cannot be modified or amended. If an amendment is to be made, it may consist only of supplying an omission, striking out a superfluity or interpreting an ambiguous phrase therein in relation to the body of the decision which gives it life (Republic v. Angeles, 41 SCRA 422; Central Bank v. CA, 61 SCRA 348). A compromise judgment should not be disturbed except for vices in consent or forgery." (Binamira v. Ogan-Occena, supra; Commercial Credit Corp. of Cagayan de Oro v. CA, Et Al., G.R. No. 78315, January 2, 1989.)chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The trial court’s decision was erroneous insofar as it fixed the duration of the lease of a period of three and a half (3-1/2) years from the filing of the ejectment complaint on May 17, 1973, or, up to October 17, 1976, instead of three (3) years from January 1, 1973, or up to December 31, 1975, as provided in the parties’ Second Stipulation of Facts. The trial court could only approve the agreement of the parties. It could not make a contract for them.

Since under the compromise, the petitioners’ occupancy of the leased premises would end on December 31, 1975, the right of the private respondents to enforce that undertaking of the petitioners-lessees and to eject them from the leased premises is long overdue.

"A compromise agreement has the effect of res judicata even if not approved by the court." (Cochingyan, Jr. v. Cloribel, 76 SCRA 361.)

"Non-fulfillment of the terms of the compromise justifies execution." (Barreras v. Hon. Garcia, Et Al., G.R. Nos. L-44715-16, January 26, 1989.)

The Regional Trial Court did not commit a reversible error in ordering the petitioners to vacate the property in question.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is denied for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* Should be 1973.

** Should read: "three (3) years starting from January 1, 1973 and ends on December 31, 1975."cralaw virtua1aw library

***




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






March-1990 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 55630 March 6, 1990 - IMPERIAL INSURANCE, INC. v. EULALIO D. ROSETE

  • G.R. No. 60945 March 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO DEGAMO

  • G.R. No. 75362 March 6, 1990 - JESUS E. ESTACIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 77912 March 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 78530 March 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO SARRA

  • G.R. No. 81093 March 6, 1990 - PORAC TRUCKING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84282 March 6, 1990 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87542 March 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISOSTOMO I. BUGAOAN

  • G.R. No. 48184 March 12, 1990 - PAULA GARCIA, ET AL. v. ANDRES GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73707 March 12, 1990 - VICTORIA C. GO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74952 March 12, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERLY DALINOG

  • G.R. No. 76792 March 12, 1990 - RESURRECCION BARTOLOME, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 48324 March 14, 1990 - JOSE AGRAVANTE, ET AL. v. JUANA PATRIARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69269 March 14, 1990 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ELPIDIA DEVARAS

  • G.R. No. 70025 March 14, 1990 - CONSOLACION NAPILAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75223 March 14, 1990 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76111 March 14, 1990 - EMMANUEL TIMBUNGCO v. RICARDO C. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81510 March 14, 1990 - HORTENCIA SALAZAR v. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81920 March 14, 1990 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL PORT TERMINALS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46746 March 15, 1990 - LIGAYA GAPUSAN-CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48194 March 15, 1990 - JOSE M. JAVIER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49286 March 15, 1990 - FELICITO SAJONAS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55300 March 15, 1990 - FRANKLIN G. GACAL, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64086 March 15, 1990 - PETER PAUL M. ABALLE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75342 March 15, 1990 - CELEDONIO MANZANILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78380 March 15, 1990 - METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM v. ROSALIO A. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84507 March 15, 1990 - CHOA TIEK SENG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85178 March 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS REPUELA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54281 March 19, 1990 - CELSO PAGTALUNAN, ET AL. v. ROQUE A. TAMAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76851 March 19, 1990 - AURORA PASCUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77542 March 19, 1990 - ELIAS CARREDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78206 March 19, 1990 - PAULINO ZAMORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79811 March 19, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO CANTUBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80179 March 19, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REY M. MANLAPAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80762 March 19, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82763-64 March 19, 1990 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87977 March 19, 1990 - ILUMINADO URBANO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88013 March 19, 1990 - SIMEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 72664-65 March 20, 1990 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79418-21 March 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO TAMAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 42037 March 21, 1990 - DOMINGO V. LUGTU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60161 March 21, 1990 - HEIRS OF FILOMENO TUYAC v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66416 March 21, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TOURS SPECIALISTS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71581 March 21, 1990 - CARMEN LABATAGOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72779 March 21, 1990 - RUBBERWORLD (PHILS.), INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73806 March 21, 1990 - TACLOBAN RICE MILLS, CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74689 March 21, 1990 - ROBERT R. BENEDICTO v. QUIRINO D. ABAD SANTOS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 78900 March 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFFY CAYAAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80600 March 21, 1990 - PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86214-15 March 21, 1990 - MAR K. AL-ESAYI AND COMPANY, LTD. v. HERMINIO FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86792 March 21, 1990 - MARINO SAPUGAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48500 March 22, 1990 - MANUEL DE LA ROSA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51143 March 22, 1990 - DOROTEO M. DE GUIA, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53623 March 22, 1990 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER MACLEOD, INC. v. MARIANO MEDINA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54567 March 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO DINOLA

  • G.R. No. 60076 March 22, 1990 - JOSE C. TAYENGCO v. RICARDO J. ILARDE

  • G.R. No. 62116 March 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELQUIADES FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76759 March 22, 1990 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77071 March 22, 1990 - MUNICIPALITY OF TALISAY v. HILARIO RAMIREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78899 March 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR BESA

  • G.R. Nos. 80110-11 March 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO J. DUMPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81032 March 22, 1990 - DEP’T. OF EDUCATION, CULTURE and SPORTS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82233 March 22, 1990 - JOSE BARITUA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83067 March 22, 1990 - RAMON C. RUBIO, JR. v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83346 March 22, 1990 - MEDRANO & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. ROXAS & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86568 March 22, 1990 - IMPERIAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88297 March 22, 1990 - ENRIQUE T. JOCSON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90213 March 22, 1990 - AGUSTIN P. REGALA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39492 March 23, 1990 - ANTIPAZ L. PINEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 50999-51000 March 23, 1990 - JOSE SONGCO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60169 March 23, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63680 March 23, 1990 - JACOBA T. PATERNO, ET AL. v. BEATRIZ PATERNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80294-95 March 23, 1990 - CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC OF THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83023 March 23, 1990 - ELADIO A. GUDEZ, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85919 March 23, 1990 - JOSE A. TAN, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69184 March 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO ABLAO

  • G.R. No. 70144 March 26, 1990 - ACTIVE WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73044 March 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO M. PALINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 73559-62 March 26, 1990 - HEIRS OF THE LATE SANTIAGO MANINGO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77756 March 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO T. MENDOZA JAVIER

  • G.R. Nos. 78583-84 March 26, 1990 - BENIGNO TODA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62603 March 27, 1990 - UNITED REALTY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87585 March 27, 1990 - BLUE MANILA, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79329 March 28, 1990 - MOBIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80042 March 28, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADOLFO QUIÑONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82027 March 29, 1990 - ROMARICO G. VITUG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83798 March 29, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO R. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-281 March 29, 1990 - SERVILLANO MAMARIL v. JUAN CONTACTO, JR., ET AL.