Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > June 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 83086 June 19, 1991 - REYNALDO C. HONRADO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 83086. June 19, 1991.]

REYNALDO C. HONRADO, JR., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and JARDINE-MANILA FINANCE, INC., Respondents.

A.M. Navarro Law Office for Petitioner.

I. M. Barredo & Associates Law Office for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS; PAYMENT; PARTY WHO SIGNED DOCUMENTS SEVERAL TIMES AS CO-MAKER IS PRESUMED TO BE AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. — Petitioner by signing the documents several times as co-maker, is presumed to be aware of the consequences of his actions. Considering that petitioner Honrado is of age and a businessman, holding the highest position in Hadd Construction Trading Corporation, he is presumed to have acted with due care, and to have signed the documents in question with full knowledge of its contents as well as the attendant obligations and responsibilities.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DOCUMENTS ADMITTED BY THE PARTY TO BE GENUINE AND DULY EXECUTED MUST BE GIVEN LEGAL EFFECT. — Since petitioner Honrado did not question and in fact admitted the genuineness of his signatures, then these documents must be given legal effects.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FACT THAT PARTY SIGNED VOLUNTARILY AS CO-MAKER PROVES HIS PARTICIPATION AS A CO-MAKER. — The testimony of the sales agent, Mr. Caruncho, can not change the legal effect of these documents. Granting that he told petitioner to sign these documents in his official capacity as president of HCTC, the mere fact that petitioner also signed voluntarily as co-maker proves his participation in the transactions as a co-maker. Furthermore, Mr. Caruncho testified that when petitioner signed these documents, all the type-written words already appeared therein.

4. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS; IF TERMS ARE CLEAR, LITERAL MEANING OF STIPULATION CONTROLS. — On the matter of interpretation of contracts, it is basic and fundamental that if the terms of the contract are clear, the literal meaning of the stipulation shall control. The intention of the parties to a contract must be determined from the contract itself. When petitioner Honrado signed several times on these documents as president of HCTC and as co-maker, there is no other interpretation but to conclusively presume that he bound himself also as co-maker. He cannot therefore renege on the obligations and liabilities attached to a co-maker. When the terms of a contract are clear and do not leave room for doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, it is not necessary to interpret the same, the literal meaning of its clauses should be followed.

5. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS; SOLIDARY OBLIGATION; CASE AT BAR. — The promissory note clearly stipulates a solidary obligation as shown by the following clause "For value received I/We jointly and severally promised to pay Cressida Motor Sales Corp. . . . Signed: Hadd Construction & Trading Corporation by Reynaldo C. Honrado, Jr., President and Reynaldo C. Honrado, Jr., Co-maker." In the case of Parot v. Gemora, this Court had occasion to state: "Where a promissory note is signed by two or more persons promising to pay the amount of the said note juntos o separadamente, such comakers are individually liable for the payment of the full amount of the obligation of such contract." Therefore, petitioner Honrado is solidarily liable to pay the full amount of the obligation as stipulated in the promissory note to which private respondent is entitled.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; A MERE MENTION OF CHARGES WITHOUT PROOF IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO RENDER A PARTY LIABLE. — The award of P81,325.00 based on the Statement of Account as of December 10, 1983, prepared by private respondent includes other charges aside from the principal obligation. These charges have not been satisfactorily proved during the trial. Moreover, a careful examination of the records of the case failed to support these charges. The records are bereft of any evidence to show how these charges were computed nor is there an adequate showing that private respondent is entitled thereto. A mere mention of the outstanding obligation of petitioner in the amount of P81,747.05 as of December 10, 1985 in the testimony of Alfonso Flores, private respondent’s manager for collection, is not sufficient without proof presented before the court of the expenses and other charges imputed to petitioner. Thus, in the interest of justice and equity, petitioner should be liable only for the outstanding balance based on the promissory note in the amount of P40,769,00. This is computed by deducting the total payments equivalent to four (4) monthly installments made by HCTC in the amount of P8,351.20 from the principal amount of the promissory note of P49,120.20. In addition, this amount of P40,769.00 shall earn interest at the rate of 14% per annum to be computed from March 10, 1979 when the total amount of the principal obligation became due and demandable until actual payment. The award of 10% liquidated damages and 15% attorney’s fees based on the principal obligation is found to be equitable.


D E C I S I O N


FERNAN, C.J.:


In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner Reynaldo C. Honrado, Jr. seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 5, 1987 1 which affirmed the decision dated January 22, 1986 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXL at Makati, Metro Manila. The dispositive portion of the affirmed decision reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Reynaldo C. Honrado, Jr., to pay plaintiff MB Finance, formerly Jardine-Manila Finance Corporation, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. P81,325.05, of which P40,769.00 representing balance of the principal amount due shall earn interest of 14% per annum from January 1984;

"2. P4,076.00 as liquidated damages;

"3. P6,115.35 as attorney’s fees; and

"4. The costs of suit." 2

The factual background of this case as found by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On August 21, 1978, Hadd Construction and Trading Corporation (HCTC for brevity) purchased on installment basis a Toyota Corolla Hardtop, 2-Door, 1978 Model with Engine No. 3K-7515608, Serial No. KE 35-915409, Plate No. B-YE-290 from Cressida Sales Corporation (Cressida for brevity). HCTC, represented by petitioner Reynaldo C. Honrado, Jr. as president, executed a promissory note in favor of Cressida, in the amount of P49,120.20, payable at the rate of P1,364.45 a month for thirty six (36) months beginning September 25, 1978 and every 25th day of the month thereafter until full payment. In said promissory note, HCTC agreed to a waiver of formal demand and presentment as well as notices of protest and dishonor, among others. Petitioner Honrado signed the promissory note a second time as co-maker of HCTC. 3 A chattel mortgage on the motor vehicle was also executed by HCTC in favor of Cressida.

On September 4, 1978, Cressida executed a deed of assignment of the promissory note with warranty of soundness in favor of Jardine-Manila Finance, Inc. for and in consideration of P30,985.54. This was executed with HCTC’s conformity, represented again by petitioner as its president. Petitioner Honrado likewise signed this deed of assignment as co-maker. 4

For failure of HCTC to pay the monthly amortization as stipulated in the promissory note, private respondent Jardine-Manila Finance, Inc. filed on May 22, 1979 an action for replevin and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch CXL, docketed as Civil Case No. 2096, praying for the seizure and delivery of the questioned motor vehicle to private respondent, with alternative prayer, that in the event the normal delivery of the motor vehicle cannot be effected, judgment be rendered ordering HCTC to pay P41,011.34 with 14% interest per annum from the date the obligation became due and demandable until fully paid. Private respondent impleaded petitioner Reynaldo Honrado, Jr. as party-defendant on the contention that he signed the documents as co-maker.

After an answer with compulsory counterclaim was filed on November 7, 1981 by herein petitioner as defendant therein, the case was thereafter set for pre-trial conference.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

On September 14, 1983, private respondent informed the trial court that it was waiving the recovery of the motor vehicle and chose to pursue instead its alternative prayer considering that since the filing of the complaint, it has not been able to recover said motor vehicle, and that even if recovered, its current value would not allegedly be commensurate to the amount of P41,011.34.

On the same day, private respondent moved to dismiss the case against HCTC without prejudice on the ground that summons could not be served on said defendant corporation since it was no longer holding office at its given address and its present address could not be ascertained. This motion was granted by the trial court on October 3, 1983.

In due time, the trial court rendered the assailed decision against petitioner who seasonably appealed to the Court of Appeals. On August 5, 1987, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision affirming that of the trial court.

Hence the present recourse of petitioner.

To support his prayer for reversal of the appellate court’s decision, petitioner argues that he signed the promissory note and deed of chattel mortgage in his official capacity as president of HCTC only. He never intended to sign these documents as co-maker. Thus, petitioner in his Memorandum raises the following issues:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1) WAS PRIVATE RESPONDENT CORRECT IN ITS CONTENTION THAT PETITIONER WAS A CO-MAKER OF HCTC IN THE EXECUTION OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE AND DEED OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE IN QUESTION?

2) WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECT IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF SUBJECT PROMISSORY NOTE AND DEED OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND AGAINST PETITIONER?" 5

On the first issue, petitioner Honrado vehemently denies any liability as co-maker of HCTC on the ground that the body of the documents in question, namely, the promissory note and deed of chattel mortgage, indicates that the contract was between HCTC and Cressida only. In addition, petitioner cites the testimony of Mr. George Caruncho, the sales agent of Cressida, who stated that petitioner was asked to sign these documents in his official capacity as president of HCTC.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

We find no merit in the above contention. Petitioner Honrado cannot plead that he signed these documents in his official capacity only as president of HCTC and not as co-maker with HCTC. The documents in question, including the deed of assignment which contains petitioner’s signatures as co-maker, whose genuineness and due execution were admitted by petitioner, clearly indicate otherwise. As stated by respondent Court of Appeals:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The promissory note (Exhibit "A") clearly shows on its face that the appellant signed the same in his capacity as President of the Hadd Construction & Trading Corp. and again as co-maker in his private capacity (Exhibits "A-2" & A-3"). Appellant also signed the Deed of Chattel Mortgage and the Affidavit of Good Faith four (4) times; twice as President and twice as co-maker (Exhibit "B"). And the appellant lastly signed his conformity to the Deed of Assignment (Exhibit "C") as president and again as co-maker."cralaw virtua1aw library

From the above facts, Petitioner, by signing these documents several times as co-maker, is presumed to be aware of the consequences of his actions. Considering that petitioner Honrado is of age and a businessman, holding the highest position in Hadd Construction Trading Corporation, he is presumed to have acted with due care, and to have signed the documents in question with full knowledge of its contents as well as the attendant obligations and responsibilities. As aptly observed by the trial court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . defendant Honrado is presumed to have intended the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act and taken ordinary care of his concerns. When defendant signed eight times on three documents, and always as president and as co-maker, it is presumed that he had exercised care in verifying his involvement in the transaction, considering his age, business life, intelligence and the fact that he occupied the highest office in the corporation." 6

Furthermore, there is no evidence of fraud. Petitioner on cross-examination testified as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q At the left handmargin of the promissory note there appears a signature over the name Reynaldo C. Honrado Jr., President, Hadd Construction and Trading Corp. Will you kindly tell us if this is your signature?

A Yes, sir.

x       x       x


Q Also, at the right hand margin of the promissory note there appears a signature above the typewritten name Reynaldo C. Honrado, Jr., co-maker, is this your signature?

A Yes, sir, that is my signature." 7

Since petitioner Honrado did not question and in fact admitted the genuineness and due execution of these documents, including the genuineness of his signatures, then these documents must be given legal effects.

The testimony of the sales agent, Mr. Caruncho, can not change the legal effect of these documents. Granting that he to]d petitioner to sign these documents in his official capacity as president of HCTC, the mere fact that petitioner also signed voluntarily as co-maker proves his participation in the transactions as a co-maker. Furthermore, Mr. Caruncho testified that when petitioner signed these documents, all the type-written words already appeared therein.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On the matter of interpretation of contracts, it is basic and fundamental that if the terms of the contract are clear, the literal meaning of the stipulation shall control. 8 The intention of the parties to a contract must be determined from the contract itself. When petitioner Honrado signed several times on these documents as president of HCTC and as co-maker, there is no other interpretation but to conclusively presume that he bound himself also as co-maker. He cannot therefore renege on the obligations and liabilities attached to a co-maker. When the terms of a contract are clear and do not leave room for doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, it is not necessary to interpret the same, the literal meaning of its clauses should be followed. 9

The promissory note clearly stipulates a solidary obligation as shown by the following clause "For value received I/We jointly and severally promised to pay Cressida Motor Sales Corp. . . . . Signed: Hadd Construction & Trading Corporation by Reynaldo C. Honrado, Jr., President and Reynaldo C. Honrado, Jr., Co-maker." In the case of Parot v. Gemora, 10 this Court had occasion to state:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Where a promissory note is signed by two or more persons promising to pay the amount of the said note juntos o separadamente, such co-makers are individually liable for the payment of the full amount of the obligation of such contract."cralaw virtua1aw library

Therefore, petitioner Honrado is solidarily liable to pay the full amount of the obligation as stipulated in the promissory note to which private respondent is entitled.

However, the award of P81,325.00 based on the Statement of Account as of December 10, 1983, 11 prepared by private respondent includes other charges aside from the principal obligation. These charges have not been satisfactorily proved during the trial. Moreover, a careful examination of the records of the case failed to support these charges. The records are bereft of any evidence to show how these charges were computed nor is there an adequate showing that private respondent is entitled thereto. A mere mention of the outstanding obligation of petitioner in the amount of P81,747.05 as of December 10, 1985 in the testimony of Alfonso Flores, private respondent’s manager for collection, 12 is not sufficient without proof presented before the court of the expenses and other charges imputed to petitioner. Thus, in the interest of justice and equity, petitioner should be liable only for the outstanding balance based on the promissory note in the amount of P40,769.00. This is computed by deducting the total payments equivalent to four (4) monthly installments made by HCTC in the amount of P8,351.20 from the principal amount of the promissory note of P49,120.20. In addition, this amount of P40,769.00 shall earn interest at the rate of 14% per annum to be computed from March 10,1979 when the total amount of the principal obligation became due and demandable 13 until actual payment. The award of 10% liquidated damages and 15% attorney’s fees based on the principal obligation is found to be equitable.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with modification as indicated below, ordering petitioner Honrado to pay private respondent MB Finance, formerly Jardine-Manila Finance Corporation as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) P40,769.00 with 14% interest per annum from March 10, 1979 until actual payment;

2) P4,076.90 as liquidated damages;

3) P6,115.35 as attorney’s fees; and

4) The costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. pp. 12-18, Rollo.

2. p. 12, Rollo.

3. Rollo, p. 44.

4. Rollo, p. 48.

5. Rollo, p. 63.

6. Rollo, p. 16.

7. T.S.N., May 13 ,1985, pp. 6 & 7.

8. Pangilinan v. Ramos, G.R. No. 75304, January 23, 1990.

9. Bilang v. Erlanger & Galinger, Inc., G.R. No. 44931, November 29, 1938, 66 Phil. 627.

10. G.R. No. 2242, December 1, 1906, 7 Phil. 94.

11. Exhibit F, Original Record, p. 99.

12. T.S.N., February 20, 1984, pp. 12-13.

13. Exhibit E, Original Record, p. 98.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





June-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 2019 June 3, 1991 - SHIRLEY CUYUGAN LIZASO v. SERGIO G. AMANTE

  • A.C. No. 3048 June 3, 1991 - JOSE C. MACIAS, ET AL. v. MANUEL EB. PACANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61250 June 3, 1991 - REINSURANCE COMPANY OF THE ORIENT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75017 June 3, 1991 - CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78328 June 3, 1991 - CARMELITA PELAEZ SAHAGUN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85184 June 3, 1991 - RAMON NIEVES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85318 June 3, 1991 - COMMART (PHILS.), INC., ET AL. v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90776 June 3, 1991 - PHILIPPINE PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. MUNICIPALITY OF PILILLA, RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91901 June 3, 1991 - SPS. LEONCIO G. CIFRA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92573 & 92867 June 3, 1991 - ALEX A. ABILA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93059 June 3, 1991 - EDMUNDO SAMANIEGO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97496 June 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. TEODOSIO

  • G.R. No. 79269 June 5, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCORO J. DONATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85840 June 5, 1991 - SERVANDO’S INCORPORATED v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92068 June 5, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANKIE ARENAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93475 June 5, 1991 - ANTONIO A. LAMERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 93932-33 June 5, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIVENCIO SABELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80043 June 6, 1991 - ROBERTO A. JACINTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85515 June 6, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIA MARASIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87320 June 6, 1991 - PABLO R. MAGNO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 95318 June 11, 1991 - LOURDES PEÑA QUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-90-474 June 19, 1991 - CRISPINO M. DE CASTRO v. ALBERTO H. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 64149 June 19, 1991 - SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHIL., LTD. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72486 June 19, 1991 - MAXIMO SOLIS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75367 June 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO LAZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75506 June 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN LLOYD S. SAROL

  • G.R. Nos. 77425 & 77450 June 19, 1991 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78180 June 19, 1991 - ISIDRO MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 81087 June 19, 1991 - INTERTROD MARITIME, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83086 June 19, 1991 - REYNALDO C. HONRADO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83710 June 19, 1992

    ERLINDO CASANAYAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88368-69 June 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH R. ESPALLARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89090 June 19, 1991 - IGNACIO SUGAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89117 June 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO L. SALGUERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89823 June 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTROPIO A. TIOZON

  • G.R. No. 90676 June 19, 1991 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91107 June 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIKAEL MALMSTEDT

  • G.R. Nos. 92169-70 June 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO J. RAPTUS

  • G.R. No. 94114 June 19, 1991 - FELICISIMA PINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95246 June 19, 1991 - BLANCA R. MARCAYDA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96760 June 19, 1991 - CIPRIANO B. PEÑAFLORIDA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97130 June 19, 1991 - FRANCISCO N. DY, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84464 June 21, 1991 - JAIME VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94372 June 21, 1991 - SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG RIZAL PARK, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93479 June 25, 1991 - TEODORO G. BARROZO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96817 June 25, 1991 - AGUSTIN B. DOCENA v. SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF EASTERN SAMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48085 June 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO C. CARCEDO

  • G.R. No. 88098 June 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO TORIBIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92245 June 26, 1991 - MELANIA A. ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93401 June 26, 1991 - ROMAN SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62650 June 27, 1991 - MARIANO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. VICENTE MADRIGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79318 June 27, 1991 - MYRON C. PAPA v. MAURA M. ALONZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83387 June 27, 1991 - TEOFILO CABRERA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89865 June 27, 1991 - RIZAL P. ECHECHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91980 June 27, 1991 - ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92270 June 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO R. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 96356 June 27, 1991 - NONILLON A. BAGALIHOG v. GIL P. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59082 June 28, 1991 - DOMINGO SALEN, ET AL. v. PEDRO M. DINGLASAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80140 June 28, 1991 - RAYMUNDO ORTEGAS, ET AL. v. VICENTE A. HIDALGO, ET AL.