Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > August 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 75363 August 4, 1992 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. v. FIRESTONE TIRE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 75363. August 4, 1992.]

FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, v. FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR DOMINGO ZAPANTA, Respondents.

Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for Petitioner.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; APPEAL; REGLEMENTARY PERIOD IN FILING THEREOF; JURISDICTIONAL. — In the recent case of Italian Village Restaurant and/or Andrew Ng v. National Labor Relations Commission and Felicisimo D. Evangelista, this Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine that appeal within the reglementary period from the decision being questioned is jurisdictional as these mandatory periods are imposed to prevent needless delays and to ensure the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; STRICT IMPLEMENTATION IN LABOR CASES; REASON THEREFOR. — Court will continue to be very strict regarding appeals filed outside the reglementary periods for filing the same, specially with respect to labor cases where: To extend the period of the appeal is to delay the case, a circumstance which could give the employer the chance to wear out the efforts and meager resources of the worker that the latter is constrained to give up to for less than what is due him.


D E C I S I O N


NOCON, J.:


Petitioner assails the June 23, 1983 decision of the public respondent National Labor Relations Commission dismissing petitioner’s appeal of the July 14, 1981 Resolution of public respondent Voluntary Arbitrator Domingo Zapanta on the ground that the same was filed beyond the reglementary period as well as the June 17, 1986 Resolution denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Public respondent Voluntary Arbitrator Domingo Zapanta summarized the events leading to the questioned July 14, 1981 Resolution, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the position papers submitted by both parties it can very well be gathered that in 1973, the Associated Labor Union (ALU) was voluntarily recognized by the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines, herein referred to as the company as the bargaining agent of the hourly paid employees working at its plant in Barrio Sucat, Muntinlupa, Rizal, and they concluded a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective for the period from February 1, 1973 up to January 31, 1976, Sections 1 and 2 . . . . Article VI of the said CBA provide, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 1. After one year of continuous and satisfactory service, hourly paid employees shall be entitled to vacation leave as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Service Vacation Leave

1 year and 1 day to 5 years — 2 calendar weeks plus 1 day

5 years and 1 day to 10 years — 2 calendar weeks plus 2 days

10 years and 1 day above — 2 calendar weeks plus 3 days

‘Section 2. Pay for the two-week period of vacation of vacation leave indicated above, will be calculated at hour per centum (4%) of the employee’s gross earnings during the previous fiscal year. Additional days indicated above the two week period will be paid at employee’s current base rate.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

‘x       x       x’

"The above CBA renewed by ALU and the Company effective February 1, 1977 to January 31, 1980, and the same carried similar provisions with respect to Vacation Leave. In the 1978 certification election supervised by the Ministry of Labor, FEU won and was certified as the bargaining agent, in lieu of the ALU, of all the hourly-paid lieu of the ALU, of all the hourly-paid employees. The Company and FEU concluded a CBA effective June 1, 1978 to January 31, 1980, superseding the unexpired portion of the CBA previously renewed by the Company and ALU. Sections 1 and 2, . . . Article VI of the said CBA, provide, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Service Vacation Leave

1 year and 1 day to 5 years — 2 calendar weeks plus 1 day

5 years and 1 day to 10 years — 2 calendar weeks plus 2 days

10 years and 1 day to 15 years — 2 calendar weeks plus 4 days

15 years and 1 day above — 2 calendar weeks plus 5 days’

‘Sections 2. Pay for the two-weeks period of vacation leave indicated above will be calculated at four per centum (4%) of the employee’s gross earnings during the previous fiscal year. Additional days indicated above the two-week period, will be paid at employee’s current base rate.’

‘x       x       x’

"After the CBA of the Company and FEU expired on January 31, 1980 they concluded a renewed CBA effective July 25, 1980 to January 31, 1983, except the effectivity of the Wage Increase which was made retroactive February 1, 1980. Sections 1 and 2 . . . Article VI of the said CBA provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sections 1. After one (1) year of continuous and satisfactory service, hourly-paid employees shall be entitled to vacation leave as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) Each employee with at least one (1) year and one day up to 5 years service shall be entitled to 13 working days of vacation leave to be calculated at 4.33% of the employee’s gross earnings during the previous fiscal year.

b) Each employees with five (5) years and one day up to 10 years service will be entitled to 14 working days of vacation leave to be calculated at 4.66% of the employee’s gross earnings during the previous fiscal year.

c) Each employee with ten (10) years and one day up to 15 years service will be entitled to 16 working days of vacation leave to be calculated at 5% if the employee’s gross earnings during the previous fiscal year.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

d) Each employee with more than 15 years’ service will be entitled to 17 working days of vacation leave. Vacation pay will be calculated at 5.6% of the employee’s gross earnings during the previous fiscal year.

‘x       x       x’

"That in previous CBA, the Company used 12 as divisor in computing the daily vacation pay for the first and second weeks as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Daily Vacation Pay = Annual Gross Earning x .04

12

and for the daily vacation pay for remaining days the hourly rate is multiplied by multiplied by the number of remaining days." 1

To implement the 1980-1983 CBA, petitioner used the following formula:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Annual Gross

Earnings x Percentage Applicable

Daily Vacation Pay = _________________________________

No. of Vacation Leave Days

Petitioner claims that under the foregoing formula, the number of vacation leave days used as a divisor would necessarily vary depending upon the employee’s service, unlike in the prior CBA where 12 was a constant divisor, representing as it did the first two weeks of vacation leave to be commuted at a uniform rate of 4% of the employee’s annual gross earnings.

The core of respondent Union’s position in the proceedings below is that the "revised formula is impractical and disadvantageous to the employees because the longer their service to the Company, even with the increased percentage of calculation, their respective daily cash equivalent for vacation leave are whittled down because the divisor becomes bigger."cralaw virtua1aw library

On March 30, 1981, the parties agreed to submit their dispute regarding the computation of vacation leave pay of the employees of petitioner under their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to voluntary arbitration, pursuant to the Labor Code and the provisions of said CBA requiring such mode of disposition of all matters involving the interpretation of the CBA.

On July 14, 1981, public respondent Zapanta issued said Resolution directing petitioner "to continue with the practice of using 12 as a divisor in computing the daily vacation pay." 2

On September 7, 1931, petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated August 15, 1981, of the above-mentioned Resolution but the same was denied for lack of merit by public respondent Zapanta on September 25, 1981.

On October 16, 1981, the petitioner filed an appeal of the September 25, 1981 Order which was opposed by the private respondent union on November 3, 1981 on the ground that the Resolution in question had already become final and executory.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Finding-private respondent union’s argument well taken, the public respondent dismissed the appeal in a decision rendered June 23, 1983. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration filed August 4, 1983, was denied for lack of merit on June 17, 1986.

Hence, this petition where petitioner claims that the public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or excess of Jurisdiction in that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The public respondents imposed upon petitioner a formula in the commutation of vacation leave which is clearly contrary to the intention of the parties unequivocally expressed in petitioner’s CBA with private respondent; and

2. The respondent voluntary arbitrator exceeded his arbitration powers in altering the terms of the CBA between petitioner and private Respondent.

We vote to dismiss the petition.

In the recent case of Italian Village Restaurant and/or Andrew Ng v. National Labor Relations Commission and Felicisimo D. Evangelista, 3 this Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine that appeal within the reglementary period from the decision being questioned is jurisdictional as these mandatory periods are imposed to prevent needless delays and to ensure the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.

For the guidance of the bench and bar, We take this opportunity to state that this Court of will continue to be very strict regarding appeals filed outside the reglementary periods for filing the same, specially with respect to labor cases where:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

To extend the period of the appeal is to delay the case, a circumstance which could give the employer the chance to wear out the efforts and meager resources of the worker that the latter is constrained to give up to for less than what is due him. 4

We quote with approval the public respondent NLRC’s finding of fact on the failure of petitioner to timely appeal the questioned resolution of the public respondent voluntary arbitrator — which findings of fact is binding on Us — thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Evident from the record is the succinct fact that the Company did not appeal from the Resolution in question. Instead, the Company filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration and received by the voluntary arbitrator on September 7, 1981. And while the motion failed to state the date of receipt by the Company of the questioned Resolution, there is that certification by the Postmaster of Makati Commercial Center Post Office to the effect that Registered Letter No. 52175 (Resolution) posted on August 7, 1981 by the voluntary arbitrator, addressed to Company General, was actually delivered to and received by Dio Intalan (Building Security Guard) on August 11, 1981.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

"As aptly observed by the union, the Company must have received a copy of the said Resolution before August 15, 1981, date of its Motion for Partial Reconsideration. We noted that from August 15, 1981 to September 7, 1981, date of filing of motion, twenty-three (23) days [or sixteen (16) working days] had already elapsed.

"Indeed, even if We treat the aforesaid motion as an appeal, as the Company pretended. We hold that the same was filed beyond the reglementary period set forth under Section 5, Rule XI, Book V of the Code’s implementing rules and regulations. We cannot, for such reason. entertain such as appeal." 5

As further explained by the Solicitor General: 6

"It should be stressed that for reason only known to petitioner, the date of receipt by petitioner or its counsel, of the aforementioned Resolution, has not been mentioned in petitioner’s Motion For Partial Reconsideration dated August 15, 1981 and also in petitioner’s basic petition and in its Reply dated January 5, 1987 to public respondent’s Comment dated December 9, 1986. Whether such actuation of petitioner was by design or not, public respondents have no way of knowing.

"In any event, petitioner did not appeal public respondent voluntary arbitrator’s Resolution dated July 14, 1981 (Annex ‘A’, ten (10) days from receipt thereof, to public respondent NLRC. What petitioner did was to file a Motion For Partial Reconsideration September 7, 1981 by public respondent voluntary arbitrator. During the interim, that is, from August 15, 1981 to September 7, 1981, twenty three (23) days had already elapsed. It is, therefore, indubitably clear that at the time when petitioner its Motion For Partial Reconsideration dated August 15, 1981 the reglementary period of ten (10) days for perfecting an appeal from public respondent voluntary arbitrator’s Resolution dated July 14, 1981 had long expired. For this compelling reason, even if it is assumed that petitioner’s aforesaid Motion For Partial Reconsideration dated August 15, 1981 could be treated as an appeal from public respondent voluntary arbitrator’s Resolution dated July 14, 1981, the appeal, just the same, could not have been entertained, as it was obviously filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period provided for in Section 5, Rule XI, Book V of the Rules of and Regulations implementing the Labor Code." 7

But even if petitioner had appealed on time. 8 There is no factual basis for reversing public respondent Voluntary Arbitrator’s Resolution, for contrary to the claim of petitioner that in imposing upon petitioner the voluntary arbitrator’s perception of what the CBA should provide, notwithstanding its clear language, said voluntary arbitrator gravely exceeded his jurisdiction, public respondent NLRC found out that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Even if We lean backwards and assume the unassumable - that there is perfected appeal — still, a review of the record, issues and arguments fail to disclose any imperious cause to be traversed. The voluntary arbitrator’s Order of September 25, 1981, which denied the Company’s motion appraised the facts as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘From the said Motion and the arguments advanced by respondent, we cannot find any substantial additional arguments for us to reconsider the Resolution subjects of this motion. It is admitted by the parties that the old and new CBA both fail to provide the divisor in computing the daily vacation pay of the employees. Respondent assumes that by the increase of the annual gross earnings, there should be a corresponding change of the divisor, while the union believes that there should be no such change in the absence of any provision in the CBA, for the use of 12 as divisor has been a practice or policy of the Respondent. As between two assumptions, the one that is in keeping with the practice or policy should prevail over the one against it. This being so, we cannot find our way clear in reconsidering the subject resolution.’ (Emphasis supplied) 9

If, as petitioner claims, the 1980-1983 CBA was written in a "clear language" then this case would never have reached Us at all. The very existence of this petition is testimony to the ambiguity involved as to the continued use of the divisor 12 in computing the daily vacation pay of petitioner’s employees.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Petitioner, in a last ditch attempt to persuade Us that the new CBA (1980-1983) will mean more benefits for private respondent union — even without the divisor 12, summarized in tabular form the cash benefits to be received by them. 10

A clearer picture, however, will emerge if the cash benefits to be received by private respondent union using the divisor 12 will be tabulated alongside petitioner’s tabulation of P36, 000.00 p. a., follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Employee Expired 1980-1983 CBA

Grouping CBA 11 No With

(Service in years) Divisor 12 Divisor 12

1 — 5 yrs. P1,496.00 13 1,558.83 14 1,688.70 15

5 yrs 1-day-10 yrs. 1,552.00 1,677.62 1,957.20

10 yrs 1-day-15 yrs. 1,664.00 1,800.00 2,400.00

15 yrs 1-day-above 1,720.00 2,016.93 2,850.00

Private respondent union will receive more cash benefits if the divisor 12 will be used. The questioned public respondent’s NLRC June 23, 1983 decision and June 17, 1986 resolution are, therefore, only in keeping with the constitutional mandate for the State to afford full protection to labor such that, when conflicting interests of labor and capital are to be weighed on the scales of sound practice, the heavier influence of the latter should be counterbalanced by the sympathy and compassion the law must accord the underprivileged worker. 16

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is denied for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 18-21.

2. Ibid, p. 22.

3. G.R. No. 95594, March 11, 1992.

4. Ibid, p. 7.

5. Rollo, p. 28.

6. The Comment and Reply of the public respondents prepared by the Solicitor General were adopted by private respondents in its Comment dated July 10, 1987, pp. 90-91, Rollo.

7. "Sec. 5. Exception to finality of decision, appeal procedure. — Except in cases where the parties agreed that the voluntary arbitration decision shall be final and executory or after they had a choice not to submit to voluntary arbitration but opted for the same, voluntary arbitration decision or award on money claims involving more than P100,000.00 or 40 percent of the paid-up capital of respondent employer, whichever is lower, may be appealed to the commission, but only on the following grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) Abuse of discretion; and

b) Gross incompetence

"The appealing party shall, within ten (10) days upon receipt of such decision or award file his appeal to the voluntary arbitrator stating specifically the grounds therefor, the errors committed and the reliefs sought.

"The Commission shall decide the appeal within twenty (20) working days from receipt of the entire records of the case. The voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall forward the entire records of the case to the Commission within five (5) days from receipt of the appellee’s answer." (Rollo, pp. 75-76)

8. No such allegation was immediately made by petitioner in Its Motion for Reconsideration of public respondent voluntary arbitrator’s July 14, 1981 Resolution filed September 7, 1981.

Neither was it made in the following pleadings:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Its appeal with public respondent NLRC of public respondent voluntary arbitrator is July 14, 1981 Resolution and September 25, 1981 Order filed October 16, 1981:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(2) Its Motion for Reconsideration of public respondent NLRC’s June 23, 1983 decision filed August 1, 1983;

3) Its Petition before this Court questioning the public respondents’ Decision and Resolution filed August 5, 1986:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

4) Its Reply to Public Respondents’ Comment filed January 6, 1987.

It is only in its Sur-Rejoinder filed on August 31, 1987 that petitioner springs this surprise of non-receipt by its counsel of public respondent voluntary arbitrator’s July 14, 1981 Resolution. From September 7, 1981 to August 31, 1987 is a span of six (6) years.

We declare that petitioner is now estopped from claiming the same.

This Court recently reiterated the doctrine of estoppel in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against its own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. The doctrine of estoppel springs from equitable principles and the equities in the case. It is designed to aid the law in the administration of justice where without its aid injustice might result. It has been applied by this Court wherever and whenever the special circumstances of a case so demands." (Philippine National Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 189 SCRA 680, 688).

9. Rollo, pp. 28-29.

10. Ibid, p. 158.

11. Petitioner’s Tabulation, Rollo, p. 158.

12. Ibid, p. 158.

13. Daily Vacation Pay (1st 2 weeks) =

Annual Gross Earnings x 0.04/12 Vacation Pay (1st 2 weeks) = Daily Vacation Pay(1st 2 weeks) x 12+Vacation Pay (remaining days) = Hourly Rate x 8 x No. of Remaining Days.

14. Daily Vacation Pay = Annual Gross Earnings x Applicable Percentage/No. Vacation Leave Days.

Vacation Pay = Daily Vacation Pay x No. of Vacation leave days.

15. Daily Vacation Pay = Annual Gross Earnings x Applicable Percentage/12.

Vacation Pay = Daily Vacation Pay x No. Vacation Leave Days

16. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. NLRC. 183 SCRA 451, 456.




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






August-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78341 August 3, 1992 - TURIANO M. SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 85962-63 August 3, 1992 - ROSARIO GACOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95703 August 3, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF BOMBON (CAM. SUR), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97306 August 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TUBURO

  • G.R. No. 75363 August 4, 1992 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. v. FIRESTONE TIRE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83190 August 4, 1992 - CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86436 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVENCIO DE PAZ

  • G.R. No. 90802 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOM CHANAS

  • G.R. No. 91160 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FULGARILLAS

  • G.R. No. 91695 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT MALONZO

  • G.R. No. 93143 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO R. RACE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-95757 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO RAÑOLA

  • G.R. No. 97319 August 4, 1992 - GODOFREDO T. SWAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98251 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CRUDA

  • G.R. No. 100399 August 4, 1992 - TEKNIKA SKILLS AND TRADE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100511 August 4, 1992 - SPS. BENITO TRINIDAD and SOLEDAD TRINIDAD v. SPS. LUIS CABRERA and DELIA CABRERA

  • G.R. No. 100752 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 102869 August 4, 1992 - SEN PO EK MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47158 August 5, 1992 - ANGUSTIA M. IBAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57127 August 5, 1992 - RHODORA DEL CASTILLO v. CANDIDO AGUINALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82782 August 5, 1992 - JOSE B. TIONGCO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87434 August 5, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INS., ET AL. v. SWEET LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97291 August 5, 1992 - RUFINO MISA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100138 August 5, 1992 - FIVE J TAXI, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101148 August 5, 1992 - TERRY LYN MAGNO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101428 August 5, 1992 - ISABELITA VITAL-GOZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102448 August 5, 1992 - RICARDO CUARTERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60506 August 6, 1992 - FIGURACION VDA. DE MAGLANA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94490 August 6, 1992 - JOSE DE LUNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96635 August 6, 1992 - ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC CO. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97952 August 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN LIQUEN

  • G.R. No. 101279 August 6, 1992 - PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105628 August 6, 1992 - RODULFO SARMIENTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-90-408 August 7, 1992 - RICHARD M. HOUGHTON, ET AL. v. ANTONIO D. VELASCO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-91-660 August 7, 1992 - UNKNOWN MUN. COUNCILOR OF STO. DOMINGO, NUEVA ECIJA v. MARIO V. ALOMIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 72001 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO BECHAYDA

  • G.R. No. 76966 August 7, 1992 - CAFFCO INT’L. LTD. v. OFF. OF THE MINISTER-MIN. OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91797 August 7, 1992 - WIDOWS & ORPHANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95431 August 7, 1992 - FLORENCIA DE LA CALZADA-CIERRAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95838 August 7, 1992 - MARCELINO LAURETO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101127-31 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENIA C. REYES

  • G.R. No. 101512 August 7, 1992 - NILDA GABRIEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95832 August 10, 1992 - MAYNARD R. PERALTA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96126 August 10, 1992 - ESTERIA F. GARCIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97611 August 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TALENTO

  • G.R. No. 97753 August 10, 1992 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97764 August 10, 1992 - LEVY D. MACASIANO v. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO

  • G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992 - ERWIN B. JAVELLANA v. DEPT. OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102795 August 10, 1992 - DAMIAN OGBURN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79664 August 11, 1992 - ANDRES VILLAVILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99431 August 11, 1992 - GOLDLOOP PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64019 August 12, 1992 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80491 August 12, 1992 - J. ARTIE VERGEL DE DIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91491 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMENARIO

  • G.R. No. 93516 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO DAMASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95583 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO WENCESLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98325 August 12, 1992 - LUCINO DIAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100490 August 12, 1992 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT LINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100942 August 12, 1992 - LUCIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62556 August 13, 1992 - VENANCIO GONZALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100285 August 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON DUQUE

  • Adm. Case No. 3187 August 14, 1992 - MYRNA D. ROQUE, ET AL. v. FELICIANO B. CLEMENCIO

  • G.R. No. 100643 August 14, 1992 - ADEZ REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100969 August 14, 1992 lab

    CARLOS RANARA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75112 August 17, 1992 - FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94555 August 17, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. EDUARDO LABALAN OCIMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101566 August 17, 1992 - FLORENCIO A. RUIZ, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-496 August 18, 1992 - MARCELO B. ASUNCION, ET AL. v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 85997 August 19, 1992 - HORTENSIA L. STARKE v. PHILIPPINE SUGAR COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96182 August 19, 1992 - MARCELO FERNANDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80739 August 2, 1992 - GRACIA R. JOVEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91004-05 August 20, 1992 - JOSEPH TAY CHUN SUY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95305 August 20, 1992 - ELENA LINDAIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90036 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO GONZAGA

  • G.R. No. 90107 August 21, 1992 - DOMINGO A. TUZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91646 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMIL MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 91846 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO MACLID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94115 August 21, 1992 - RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO v. LUIS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94299 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 96810 August 21, 1992 - THE HEIRS OF JESUS AMADO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101858 August 21, 1992 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85286 August 24, 1992 - BASILIO A. BALASBAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100401 August 24, 1992 - CONSOLIDATED DAIRY PRODUCTS CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101630 August 24, 1992 - VICTOR DE JESUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91129 August 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO D. PABLO

  • G.R. No. 94374 August 27, 1992 - PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59436 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74740 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 48532 August 31, 1992 - HERNANDO B. CONWI, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65532 August 31, 1992 - CONCEPCION PELAEZ VDA. DE TAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66253 August 31, 1992 - METRO PORT SERVICE, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75959 August 31, 1992 - VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92758 August 31, 1992 - EMILIO VENEGAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93238 August 31, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102131 August 31, 1992 - FRANCO GORION v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU, ET AL.