Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > May 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 96298 May 14, 1991 - RENATO M. LAPINID v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 96298. May 14, 1991.]

RENATO M. LAPINID, Petitioner, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY and JUANITO JUNSAY, Respondents.

Brillantes, Nachura, Navarro & Arcilla Law Offices for Petitioner.

Adolpho M. Guerzon for J. Junsay, Jr.

Evalyn I. Fetalino, Rogelio C. Limare and Daisy B. Garcia-Tingzon for Civil Service Commission.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; APPOINTMENT; PERMANENT APPOINTMENT; AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE IT, NOT VESTED IN THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. — The only function of the Civil Service Commission in cases of this nature, according to Luego, is to review the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law, and when it finds the appointee to be qualified and all other legal requirements have been otherwise satisfied, it has no choice but to attest to the appointment. Luego finally points out that the recognition by the Commission that both the appointee and the protestant are qualified for the position in controversy renders it functus officio in the case and prevents it from acting further thereon except to affirm the validity of the former’s appointment; it has no authority to revoke the appointment simply because it considers another employee to be better qualified for that would constitute an encroachment on the discretion vested in the appointing authority.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DETERMINATION OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN APPOINTEE; VESTED ALONE IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY. — The determination of who among several candidates for a vacant position has the best qualifications is vested in the sound discretion of the Department Head or appointing authority and not in the Civil Service Commission. Every particular job in an office calls for both formal and informal qualifications. Formal qualifications such as age, number of academic units in a certain course, seminars attended, etc., may be valuable but so are such intangibles as resourcefulness, team spirit, courtesy. initiative, loyalty, ambition, prospects for the future, and best interests of the service. Given the demands of a certain job, who can do it best should be left to the Head of the Office concerned provided the legal requirements for the office are satisfied. The Civil Service Commission cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Head of Office in this regard.

3. ID.; ID.; NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS THEREOF. — Appointment is a highly discretionary act that even this Court cannot compel. While the act of appointment may in proper cases be the subject of mandamus, the selection itself of the appointee — taking into account the totality of his qualifications, including those abstract qualities that define his personality — is the prerogative of the appointing authority. This is a matter addressed only to the discretion of the appointing authority. It is a political question that the Civil Service Commission has no power to review under the Constitution and the applicable laws.

4. ID.; ID.; LIMITS ON THE PROPER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION TO "APPROVE" AND DISAPPROVE" APPOINTMENTS. — Commenting on the limits of the powers of the public respondent, Luego declared: It is understandable if one is likely to be misled by the language of Section 9(h) of Article V of the Civil Service Decree because it says the Commission has the power to ‘approve" and "disapprove" appointments. Thus, it is provided therein that the Commission shall have inter alia the power to: "9(h) Approve all appointments, whether original or promotional, to positions in the civil service, except those presidential appointees, members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, police forces, firemen, and jailguards, and disapprove those where the appointees do not possess appropriate eligibility or required qualifications." However, a full reading of the provision, especially of the underscored parts, will make it clear that all the Commission is actually allowed to do is check whether or not the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications. If he does, his appointment is approved; if not, it is disapproved. No other criterion is permitted by law to be employed by the Commission when it acts on — or as the Decree says, "approves" or "disapproves" — an appointment made by the proper authorities.

5. ID.; ID.; OBSERVANCE OF LUEGO DOCTRINE AND SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS REITERATING IT ENJOINED. — Whatever the reasons for its conduct, the Civil Service Commission is ORDERED to desist from disregarding the doctrine announced in Luego v. Civil Service Commission and the subsequent decisions reiterating such ruling. Up to this point, the Court has leniently regarded the attitude of the public respondent on this matter as imputable to a lack of comprehension and not to intentional intransigence. But we are no longer disposed to indulge that fiction. Henceforth, departure from the mandate of Luego by the Civil Service Commission after the date of the promulgation of this decision shall be considered contempt of this Court and shall be dealt with severely, in view especially of the status of the contemner. While we appreciate the fact that the Commission is a constitutional body, we must stress, as a necessary reminder, that every department and office in the Republic must know its place in the scheme of the Constitution. The Civil Service Commission should recognize that its acts are subject to reversal by this Court, which expects full compliance with its decisions even if the Commission may not agree with them.


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


The issue raised in this case has been categorically resolved in a long line of cases that should have since guided the policies and actions of the respondent Civil Service Commission. Disregard of our consistent ruling on this matter has needlessly imposed on the valuable time of the Court and indeed borders on disrespect for the highest tribunal, We state at the outset that this conduct can no longer be countenanced.chanrobles law library : red

Petitioner Renato M. Lapinid was appointed by the Philippine Ports Authority to the position of Terminal Supervisor at the Manila International Container Terminal on October 1, 1988. This appointment was protested on December 15, 1988, by private respondent Juanito Junsay, who reiterated his earlier representations with the Appeals Board of the PPA on May 9, 1988, for a review of the decision of the Placement Committee dated May 3, 1988. He contended that he should be designated terminal supervisor, or to any other comparable position, in view of his preferential right thereto. On June 26, 1989, complaining that the PPA had not acted on his protest, Junsay went to the Civil Service Commission and challenged Lapinid’s appointment on the same grounds he had earlier raised before the PPA. In a resolution dated February 14, 1990, the Commission disposed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

After a careful review of the records of the case, the Commission finds the appeal meritorious. In the comparative evaluation sheets, the parties were evaluated according to the following criteria, namely: eligibility; education; work experience; productivity/performance/attendance; integrity; initiative/leadership; and physical characteristics/personality traits. The results of the evaluation are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

JUNSAY, Juanito — 79.5

VILLEGAS, Benjamin — 79

LAPINID, Renato — 75

DULFO, Antonio — 78

MARIANO, Eleuterio — 79

FLORES, Nestor — 80

DE GUZMAN, Alfonso — 80

VER, Cesar — 80

It is thus obvious that Protestants Junsay (79.5) and Villegas (79) have an edge over that of protestees Lapinid (75) and Dulfo (78).

Foregoing premises considered, it is directed that Appellants Juanito Junsay and Benjamin Villegas be appointed as Terminal Supervisor (SG 18) vice protestees Renato Lapinid and Antonio Dulfo respectively who may be considered for appointment to any position commensurate and suitable to their qualifications, and that the Commission be notified within ten (10) days of the implementation hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Upon learning of the said resolution, Lapinid, who claimed he had not been informed of the appeal and had not been heard thereon, filed a motion for reconsideration on March 19, 1990. This was denied on May 25, 1990. The Philippine Ports Authority also filed its own motion for reconsideration on June 19, 1990, which was denied on August 17, 1990. A second motion for reconsideration filed on September 14, 1990, based on the re-appreciation of Lapinid’s rating from 75% to 84%, was also denied on October 19, 1990.

When the petitioner came to this Court on December 13, 1990, we resolved to require Comments from the respondents and in the meantime issued a temporary restraining order. The Solicitor General took a stand against the Civil Service Commission, which, at his suggestion, was allowed to file its own Comment. The petitioner filed a Reply. The private respondent’s Comment was dispensed with when it was not filed within the prescribed period.

We see no reason to deviate from our consistent ruling on the issue before us.

In Luego v. Civil Service Commission, 1 this Court declared:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The issue is starkly simple: Is the Civil Service Commission authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the ground that another person is better qualified than the appointee and, on the basis of this finding, order his replacement by the latter?

x       x       x


Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred. This is a political question involving considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide.

x       x       x


Significantly, the Commission on Civil Service acknowledged that both the petitioner and the private respondent were qualified for the position in controversy. That recognition alone rendered it functus officio in the case and prevented it from acting further thereon except to affirm the validity of the petitioner’s appointment. To be sure, it had no authority to revoke the said appointment simply because it believed that the private respondent was better qualified for that would have constituted an encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the city mayor.

The same ruling has been affirmed, in practically the same language as Luego, in Central Bank v. Civil Service Commission, 171 SCRA 744; Santiago v. Civil Service Commission, 178 SCRA 733; Pintor v. Tan, G.R. No. 84022 and G.R. No. 85804, March 9, 1989, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Galura v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 85812, June 1, 1989, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Zulueta v. Mamangun, G.R. No. 85941, June 15, 1989, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Remigio v. Chairman, Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 86324, July 6, 1989, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Aurora Macacua v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 91520, July 31, 1990, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Abdulwahab A. Bayao v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92388, September 11, 1990, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Orbos v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92561, September 12, 1990; Alicia D. Tagaro v. The Hon. Civil Service Commission, Et Al., G.R. No. 90477, September 13, 1990, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Elenito Lim v. Civil Service Commission, Et Al., G.R. No. 87145, October 11, 1990, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Teologo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92103, November 8, 1990; Simpao v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 85976, November 15, 1990.chanrobles law library

Only recently, in Gaspar v. Court of Appeals, 2 this Court said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The only function of the Civil Service Commission in cases of this nature, according to Luego, is to review the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law, and when it finds the appointee to be qualified and all other legal requirements have been otherwise satisfied, it has no choice but to attest to the appointment. Luego finally points out that the recognition by the Commission that both the appointee and the protestant are qualified for the position in controversy renders it functus officio in the case and prevents it from acting further thereon except to affirm the validity of the former’s appointment; it has no authority to revoke the appointment simply because it considers another employee to be better qualified for that would constitute an encroachment on the discretion vested in the appointing authority.

x       x       x


The determination of who among several candidates for a vacant position has the best qualifications is vested in the sound discretion of the Department Head or appointing authority and not in the Civil Service Commission. Every particular job in an office calls for both formal and informal qualifications. Formal qualifications such as age, number of academic units in a certain course, seminars attended, etc., may be valuable but so are such intangibles as resourcefulness, team spirit, courtesy. initiative, loyalty, ambition, prospects for the future, and best interests of the service. Given the demands of a certain job, who can do it best should be left to the Head of the Office concerned provided the legal requirements for the office are satisfied. The Civil Service Commission cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Head of Office in this regard.

It is therefore incomprehensible to the Court why, despite these definitive pronouncements, the Civil Service Commission has seen fit to ignore, if not defy, the clear mandate of the Court.

We declare once again, and let us hope for the last time, that the Civil Service Commission has no power of appointment except over its own personnel. Neither does it have the authority to review the appointments made by other offices except only to ascertain if the appointee possesses the required qualifications. The determination of who among aspirants with the minimum statutory qualifications should be preferred belongs to the appointing authority and not the Civil Service Commission. It cannot disallow an appointment because it believes another person is better qualified and much less can it direct the appointment of its own choice.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Appointment is a highly discretionary act that even this Court cannot compel. While the act of appointment may in proper cases be the subject of mandamus, the selection itself of the appointee — taking into account the totality of his qualifications, including those abstract qualities that define his personality — is the prerogative of the appointing authority. This is a matter addressed only to the discretion of the appointing authority. It is a political question that the Civil Service Commission has no power to review under the Constitution and the applicable laws.

Commenting on the limits of the powers of the public respondent, Luego declared:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

It is understandable if one is likely to be misled by the language of Section 9(h) of Article V of the Civil Service Decree because it says the Commission has the power to ‘approve" and "disapprove" appointments. Thus, it is provided therein that the Commission shall have inter alia the power to:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"9(h) Approve all appointments, whether original or promotional, to positions in the civil service, except those presidential appointees, members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, police forces, firemen, and jailguards, and disapprove those where the appointees do not possess appropriate eligibility or required qualifications." (Emphasis supplied)

However, a full reading of the provision, especially of the underscored parts, will make it clear that all the Commission is actually allowed to do is check whether or not the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications. If he does, his appointment is approved; if not, it is disapproved. No other criterion is permitted by law to be employed by the Commission when it acts on — or as the Decree says, "approves" or "disapproves" — an appointment made by the proper authorities.

The Court believes it has stated the foregoing doctrine clearly enough, and often enough, for the Civil Service Commission not to understand them. The bench does; the bar does; and we see no reason why the Civil Service Commission does not. If it will not, then that is an entirely different matter and shall be treated accordingly.

We note with stern disapproval that the Civil Service Commission has once again directed the appointment of its own choice in the case at bar. We must therefore make the following injunctions which the Commission must note well and follow strictly.

Whatever the reasons for its conduct, the Civil Service Commission is ORDERED to desist from disregarding the doctrine announced in Luego v. Civil Service Commission and the subsequent decisions reiterating such ruling. Up to this point, the Court has leniently regarded the attitude of the public respondent on this matter as imputable to a lack of comprehension and not to intentional intransigence. But we are no longer disposed to indulge that fiction. Henceforth, departure from the mandate of Luego by the Civil Service Commission after the date of the promulgation of this decision shall be considered contempt of this Court and shall be dealt with severely, in view especially of the status of the contemner.

While we appreciate the fact that the Commission is a constitutional body, we must stress, as a necessary reminder, that every department and office in the Republic must know its place in the scheme of the Constitution. The Civil Service Commission should recognize that its acts are subject to reversal by this Court, which expects full compliance with its decisions even if the Commission may not agree with them.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The Commission on Civil Service has been duly warned. Henceforth, it disobeys at its peril.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the respondent Civil Service Commission dated February 14, 1990, May 25, 1990, August 17, 1990, and October 19, 1990, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining order dated December 13, 1990, is made PERMANENT. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 143 SCRA 327.

2. G.R. No. 90799, October 18, 1990.




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






May-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 53768 May 6, 1991 - PATRICIA CASILDO CACHERO v. BERNARDINO MARZAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65833 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO G. LAGARTO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 75724 May 6, 1991 - WESTERN AGUSAN WORKERS UNION v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 83383 May 6, 1991 - SOLID STATE MULTI-PRODUCTS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 84079 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR KALUBIRAN

  • G.R. No. 85423 May 6, 1991 - JOSE TABUENA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86364 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE ANDAYA

  • G.R. No. 87913 May 6, 1991 - LEONOR A. OLALIA v. LOLITA O. HIZON

  • G.R. No. 90742 May 6, 1991 - LEONARDO A. AURELIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 91490 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN L. CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 92124 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR BASE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92742 May 6, 1991 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. NILDA S. JACINTO

  • G.R. No. 93561 May 6, 1991 - CANDIDO A. DALUPE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 93687 May 6, 1991 - ROMEO P. CO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94037 May 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARIEL G. HILARIO

  • G.R. No. 95146 May 6, 1991 - ROBERTO E. FERMIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85494 & 85496 May 7, 1991 - CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93410 May 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO GODINES

  • G.R. No. 68743 May 8, 1991 - ROSA SILAGAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 71719-20 May 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME C. BACDAD

  • G.R. No. 83271 May 8, 1991 - VICTOR D. YOUNG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 84330 May 8, 1991 - RAMON Y. ASCUE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90021 May 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO D. LIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93021 May 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO UMBRERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94540-41 May 8, 1991 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS (NAFLU) v. ERNESTO G. LADRIDO III

  • G.R. No. 95667 May 8, 1991 - JOSE C. BORJA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96516 May 8, 1991 - JESUS C. ESTANISLAO v. AMADO COSTALES

  • G.R. No. 46658 May 13, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. 64818 May 13, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA P. LEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68138 May 13, 1991 - AGUSTIN Y. GO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67738 May 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN QUIRITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89168 May 14, 1991 - ROSA LENTEJAS v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 91649 May 14, 1991 - HUMBERTO BASCO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENTS AND GAMING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 91988 May 14, 1991 - ALLIED LEASING & FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92415 May 14, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OMAR MAPALAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93885 May 14, 1991 - FELIX H. CABELLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96298 May 14, 1991 - RENATO M. LAPINID v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-88-246 May 15, 1991 - IN RE: MARCELO G. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 62673 May 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER E. CORRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84401 May 15, 1991 - SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89370-72 May 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO G. MAGDADARO

  • G.R. No. 93708 May 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELVIN B. ODICTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94878-94881 May 15, 1991 - NORBERTO A. ROMUALDEZ III v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96025 May 15, 1991 - OSCAR P. PARUNGAO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96630 May 15, 1991 - NOTRE DAME DE LOURDES HOSPITAL, ET AL. v. HEILLA S. MALLARE-PHILLIPS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56294 May 20, 1991 - SMITH BELL AND COMPANY (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60848 May 20, 1991 - GAN HOCK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79597-98 May 20, 1991 - DEMETRIA LACSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83432 May 20, 1991 - RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY v. MANUELITO S. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. 90762 May 20, 1991 - AURELIO D. MENZON v. LEOPOLDO E. PETILLA

  • G.R. No. 91886 May 20, 1991 - ROLANDO ANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91902 May 20, 1991 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96578 May 20, 1991 - CELSO LUSTRE v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96608-09 May 20, 1991 - TUCOR INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2614 May 21, 1991 - MAXIMO DUMADAG v. ERNESTO L. LUMAYA

  • G.R. No. 26785 May 23, 1991 - DEOGRACIAS A. REGIS, JR. v. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73573 May 23, 1991 - TRINIDAD NATINO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77087 May 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO F. NARIT

  • G.R. Nos. 78772-73 May 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO PATILAN

  • G.R. No. 84647 May 23, 1991 - MARIA ALICIA LEUTERIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90625 May 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO M. DAPITAN

  • G.R. No. 91003 May 23, 1991 - JESUS MORALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92422 May 23, 1991 - AMERICAN INTER-FASHION CORP. v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2736 May 27, 1991 - LORENZANA FOOD CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO L. DARIA

  • G.R. No. 42189 May 27, 1991 - ERNESTO PANTI v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54177 May 27, 1991 - JOSE DARWIN, ET AL. v. FRANCISCA A. TOKONAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76219 May 27, 1991 - GTE DIRECTORIES CORPORATION v. AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77205 May 27, 1991 - VALENTINO TORILLO v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83463 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO GINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85446 May 27, 1991 - OCEAN TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91106 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 91934 May 27, 1991 - RAMON T. TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92626-29 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 96230 May 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO E. CUSTODIO

  • A.C. No. 577 May 28, 1991 - REMEDIOS DY v. RAMON M. MIRANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46132 May 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 81020 May 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LILIA F. GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. 83214 May 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUN AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 89870 May 28, 1991 - DAVID S. TILLSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95256 May 28, 1991 - MARIANO DISTRITO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96301 May 28, 1991 - COLEGIO DEL STO. NIÑO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72763 May 29, 1991 - ALTO SALES CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76931 & 76933 May 29, 1991 - ORIENT AIR SERVICES & HOTEL REPRESENTATIVES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84588 & 84659 May 29, 1991 - CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87437 May 29, 1991 - JOAQUIN M. TEOTICO v. DEMOCRITO O. AGDA, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96357 May 29, 1991 - PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-345 May 31, 1991 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LORENZO SAN ANDRES

  • G.R. No. 63975 May 31, 1991 - GUILLERMO RIZO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO P. SOLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 64323-24 May 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE D. LUCERO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79723 & 80191 May 31, 1991 - KALILID WOOD INDUSTRIES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83694 May 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO PONCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84361 May 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELANITO QUIJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88291 May 31, 1991 - ERNESTO M. MACEDA v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 91383-84 May 31, 1991 - SOCORRO COSTA CRISOSTOMO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94262 May 31, 1991 - FEEDER INTERNATIONAL LINE, PTE., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95122-23 & 95612-13 May 31, 1991 - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (CID), ET AL. v. JOSELITO DELA ROSA, ET AL.