Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > July 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 96915 July 3, 1992 - CONCEPCION DUMAGAT v. SANDIGANBAYAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 96915. July 3, 1992.]

CONCEPCION DUMAGAT, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; IN MALVERSATION CASES, AUDIT EXAMINATION OF ACCOUNTS MUST BE THOROUGH AND FOLLOW STANDARD PROCEDURES; CASE AT BAR. — Considering the gravity of the offense of Malversation of Public Funds, accounts should be examined carefully and thoroughly to the last detail, with absolute certainty in strict compliance with the Manual of Instructions. Imperative it is likewise that sufficient time be given examined officers to reconstruct their accounts and refute the charge that they had put government funds to their personal uses. Access to records must be afforded them within reasonable time after audit when disbursements are still fresh in their minds and not years after when relevant official records may no longer be available and the passage of time has blurred human memory (Tinga v. People, G.R. No. 57650, 160 SCRA 483 [1988]). The audit examination conducted by Auditor Eway failed to establish that the funds were indeed missing since she did not follow standard auditing procedures by not including in her examination the funds petitioner kept in the vaults located in Tampilisan and Sindangan.

2. ID.; ID.; SIGNING OF AUDIT REPORT, NOT CONSIDERED PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF GUILT IN MALVERSATION CASES. — Petitioner’s signing of the audit report can not be considered prima facie evidence of her guilt. Following this Court’s ruling in Tinga v. People, (160 SCRA 489) petitioner’s signature thereon only meant an acknowledgment that a demand was made, but not to the statement of her accountability as the examination was not complete.

3. CRIMINAL LAW; MALVERSATION; PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION ON FAILURE OF AN ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO PRODUCE PUBLIC FUNDS; NOT APPLICABLE WHERE AUDIT EXAMINATION IS INCOMPLETE; CASE AT BAR. — The ruling in Tinga v. People (160 SCRA 488) that" [t]he prima facie presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code arises if there is no issue as to the accuracy, correctness and regularity of the audit findings and if the fact that funds are missing is indubitably established," has no application in the instant case in the light of the haphazard examination of the cash accountability of petitioner in violation of the Manual of Instructions of Treasurers and Auditors and the credible explanation of petitioner that the "missing" funds would have been "discovered" if only the auditor took into consideration the contents of the two vaults in Sindangan and Tampilisan and the fact that her collection in Dipolog City were deposited with the NFA Cashier.


D E C I S I O N


NOCON, J.:


Petitioner Concepcion Dumagat seeks the review of the decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 14189, promulgated on January 23, 1991, finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of malversation of public funds.

Petitioner was the Special Disbursing Officer of the National Food Authority (NFA) of Zamboanga del Norte from 1982 to 1988. She was officially assigned at Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, although her official functions extend to the different stations of NFA, located at various points of Zamboanga del Norte, including the City of Dipolog, Tampilisan, Labason and others.

Sometime in May 1988, State Auditor I, Liliosa P. Eway, conducted a spot audit examination of petitioner’s cash and accounts in Dipolog City covering the period from May 31, 1986 to May 18, 1988. Petitioner having been found to have incurred a shortage of P98,122.51, a formal letter of demand was sent requiring her to produce the missing funds.

On June 6, 1988 petitioner tendered P5,000.00, followed by P50,000.00 on June 7, 1988 and finally the remaining balance of P43,127.24 on June 30, 1988 to cover for the amount of shortage. Despite completing the amount of shortage, a complaint was filed against petitioner before the Office of the Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor. After conducting the preliminary investigation, Second Assistant City Prosecutor Charles D. Adraincem recommended dismissal of the complaint due to lack of prima facie case against petitioner. 1

The dismissal was, however, disapproved by Deputy Special Prosecutor Jose De G. Ferrer and concurred in by Acting Special Prosecutor Jesus F. Guerrero. Hence, an information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner to have "wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapply, embezzle and take away . . . the total amount of NINETY EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO PESOS AND 51/100 (P98,122.51) out of which said funds she appropriated and converted to her own personal use and benefit . . . ." 2chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

After the parties had presented their evidence, the Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of malversation of public funds punishable under Article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Favoring her the mitigating circumstance of restitution, she was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS of reclusion temporal as maximum, to suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and to pay fine equal to the amount malversed.

The decision of the Sandiganbayan was anchored on the last paragraph of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses."cralaw virtua1aw library

and the case of de Guzman v. People, 3 where this Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In Malversation, all that is necessary to prove is that the defendant received in his possession public funds, that he could not account for them and did not have them in his possession and that he could not give a reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the same. An accountable public officer may be convicted of Malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in his accounts which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily." 4

Based on the above, the Sandiganbayan opined:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Measured against these legal standards, We find that accused here had not overcome the presumption provided for by Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code that upon her failure to produce such public funds for which she is chargeable upon proper demand made upon her, she has put such missing funds to her personal use." 5

The court a quo found the gap from May 25, 1988 (her deadline to produce the missing funds) to June 6, 7, and 30 (the dates when she actually tendered the amount alleged to have been malversed) to be quite far apart to dispute the belief that petitioner had indeed appropriated said funds. 6

Other points raised by the Sandiganbayan were that the accused signed the report as" ‘true and correct report of the examination’ without any reservation" 7 and her failure to put in writing her request to be given more time to examine and reconcile her records. 8

However, the Sandiganbayan failed to consider the fact that the audit examination was done in Dipolog, when petitioner’s official station was at Sindangan. Being a Special Collection/Disbursing officer of the NFA for Zamboanga del Norte, petitioner had also other offices in Siayan, Bacungan. Salug, Liloy, Labason and Tampilisan, aside from Dipolog. It also disregarded the fact that petitioner had two other vaults in Tampilisan and Sindangan, and the records, receipts, and cash contained therein were not made part of the audit report because the examination was confined to whatever records and papers that were found in Dipolog. 9 Finally, the Sandiganbayan did not take cognizance of the fact that the prosecution admitted that all collections of the accused in Dipolog City were deposited by her with the cashier of the NFA, while all her collections in the other stations were deposited in the vaults assigned to her either in Sindangan or Tampilisan.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

As a matter of fact, during the pre-trial, the prosecution admitted:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


". . . that there are two safety vaults in the office of the NFA located in Sindangan and Tampilisan used by the accused and assigned to her;

". . . that all collections of the accused in Dipolog City were deposited by her with the cashier of the NFA, while all her collections in the other stations were deposited by her in the vaults assigned to her in Sindangan and Tampilisan;

". . . that the audit was made in Dipolog City in the presence of the accused and lasted for one week from the notice to produce cash and cash items;

". . . that the auditor served the letter of demand dated May 18, 1988 only after she had finished the audit and had come to know the exact amount of the alleged shortage and the accused requested for extension of time on which the auditor did not act;" 10

Considering the foregoing circumstances, We find merit in the appeal. Notably, no less than the Solicitor General recommended acquittal of the petitioner. 11

This Court has held in the case of Tinga v. People 12 that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . it may not be amiss to state that considering the gravity of the offense of Malversation of Public Funds, just as government treasurers are held to strict accountability as regards funds entrusted to them in a fiduciary capacity, so also should examining COA auditors act with great care and caution in the audit of the accounts of such accountable officers to avoid the perpetration of any injustice. Accounts should be examined carefully and thoroughly ‘to the last detail,’ ‘with absolute certainty’ in strict compliance with the Manual of Instructions. Special note should be taken of the fact that disallowances for lack of pre-audit are not necessarily tantamount to malversation in law. Imperative it is likewise that sufficient time be given examined officers to reconstruct their accounts and refute the charge that they had put government funds to their personal uses. Access to records must be afforded them within reasonable time after audit when disbursements are still fresh in their minds and not years after when relevant official records may no longer be available and the passage of time has blurred human memory." 13

The audit examination conducted by Auditor Eway failed to establish that the funds were indeed missing since she did not follow standard auditing procedures by not including in her examination the funds petitioner kept in the vaults located in Tampilisan and Sindangan.

The Manual of Instructions to Treasurers and Auditors and Other Guidelines requires —

"SEC. 560. The procedure and scope of a cash examination and inspection. — A cash examination shall embrace the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"(d) Inspection of the total contents of the safes and other cash receptacles in the possession of each accountable officer or employee to establish absolute certainty that no other cash, checks, warrants, or valid cash items have been left out of the count and inventory."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the other hand, Section 561 of the same Manual provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 561. Prohibition of incomplete examinations. Examinations shall be thorough and complete in every case to the last detail. Mere count of cash and valid cash items without verifying the stock of issued and unissued accountable forms and various records of collections and disbursements, as well as the entries in the cashbook is not examination at all. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Since the audit examination left much to be desired in terms of thoroughness and completeness as there were accounts which were not considered, the same can not be made the basis for holding petitioner liable for malversation. Said the Solicitor General:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For had the audit examination been complete and thorough (by including the records/documents in petitioner’s other offices), [a] strong possibility exists the "missing" P98,122.51 could have been satisfactorily accounted for." 14

Petitioner’s signing of the audit report can not be considered prima facie evidence of her guilt. Following this Court’s ruling in Tinga, supra, petitioner’s signature thereon only meant an acknowledgment that a demand was made, but not to the statement of her accountability as the examination was not complete. 15

On the other hand, her failure to immediately account for the alleged shortage is understandable considering the fact that petitioner was in-charge of eight NFA stations, which are 86 km. to 160 km. away from Dipolog. This Court observed that the entreaties and explanations made by petitioner that Auditor Eway accompany her to the different NFA stations to support her claims on the existence of the money deposited therein fell on deaf ears.

Thus, the ruling in Tinga that" [t]he prima facie presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code arises if there is no issue as to the accuracy, correctness and regularity of the audit findings and if the fact that funds are missing is indubitably established," 16 has no application in the instant case in the light of the haphazard examination of the cash accountability of petitioner in violation of the Manual of Instructions to Treasurers and Auditors and the credible explanation of petitioner that the "missing" funds would have been "discovered" if only the auditor took into consideration the contents of the two vaults in Sindangan and Tampilisan and the fact that her collection in Dipolog City were deposited with the NFA Cashier.chanrobles law library

Considering the foregoing, We find that the guilt of the petitioner has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and hence should be acquitted of the crime charged.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Sandiganbayan is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and the petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds. Cost de officio.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Annex "B."

2. Decision, p. 2.

3. L-54288, 119 SCRA 337 (1982).

4. Id., at 347. Underscoring supplied.

5. Decision, p. 15.

6. Id., p. 16.

7. Id., p. 17, citing Exhibit "A-G."

8. Id., p. 17.

9. These facts were admitted by the prosecution during the pre-trial conference. Decision, p. 6.

10. Id., p. 5-7.

11. Rollo, p. 93-105.

12. L-57650, 160 SCRA 483 (1988).

13. 160 SCRA, at 491. Underscoring supplied.

14. Comment, p. 11.

15. 160 SCRA, at 489.

16. 160 SCRA, at 488.




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






July-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 94785 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO A. LOSTE

  • G.R. No. 98243 July 1, 1992 - ALEJANDRO ARADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98432 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO PLETADO

  • G.R. No. 100198 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLIE VILLORENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100772 July 1, 1992 - ALEX GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94588 July 2, 1992 - FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. NLRC (POEA), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96745 July 2, 1992 - MANUEL MELGAR DE LA CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-490 July 3, 1992 - YOLANDA DIPUTADO-BAGUIO v. FELIPE T. TORRES

  • A.C. No. 2349 July 3, 1992 - DOROTHY B. TERRE v. ATTY. JORDAN TERRE

  • G.R. Nos. 37012-13 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO NOMAT, SR.

  • G.R. No. 64284 July 3, 1992 - JOSE S. VELASQUEZ v. MARTIN NERY

  • G.R. No. 69971 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO C. LUVENDINO

  • G.R. Nos. 76818-19 July 3, 1992 - CDCP TEWU v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 88752 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO P. MANANSALA

  • G.R. No. 88912 July 3, 1992 - TIERRA INT’L. CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 90803 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO ARMENTANO

  • G.R. No. 92136 July 3, 1992 - EDGARDO DYTIAPCO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 92391 July 3, 1992 - PFVI INC. v. RUBEN D. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 93016 July 3, 1992 - UNITED ALUMINUM FABRICATORS v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • G.R. No. 94566 July 3, 1992 - BA FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95048 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER MONTILLA

  • G.R. No. 96054 July 3, 1992 - MARIANO M. LAZATIN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96628 July 3, 1992 - CEFERINO INCIONG v. EUFEMIO DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. 96825 July 3, 1992 - RAVA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96865 July 3, 1992 - MARCELINO KIAMCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96410 July 3, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96915 July 3, 1992 - CONCEPCION DUMAGAT v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 97419 July 3, 1992 - GAUDENCIO T. CENA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 98440 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME LAURORA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 101208 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY R. TOMENTOS

  • G.R. No. 101273 July 3, 1992 - ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

  • G.R. No. 101526 July 3, 1992 - RODELA D. TORREGOZA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101703 July 3, 1992 - LUCRECIA DELA ROSA v. ROSARIO M. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 101724 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 101808 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON BOLANOS

  • G.R. No. 101919 July 3, 1992 - RODOLFO ALCANTARA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 102342 July 3, 1992 - LUZ M. ZALDIVIA, v. ANDRES B. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 102494 July 3, 1992 - MAXIMO FELICILDA v. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE

  • G.R. No. 102606 July 3, 1992 - LINO R. TOPACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 105111 July 3, 1992 - RAMON L. LABO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105323 July 3, 1992 - FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 49282 July 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT PIZARRO

  • G.R. No. 88300 July 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNIE C. LAPAN

  • G.R. No. 91879 July 6, 1992 - HEIRS OF MAXIMO REGOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100168 July 8, 1992 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101619 July 8, 1992 - SANYO PHIL. WORKERS UNION v. POTENCIANO S. CANIZARES

  • G.R. No. 41420 July 10, 1992 - CMS LOGGING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 89554 July 10, 1992 - JUANITO A. ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95253 July 10, 1992 - CONSUELO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 97144-45 July 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO "BEN" VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 98430 July 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO NECERIO

  • G.R. No. 98467 July 10, 1992 - NATIONAL DEV’T CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101749 July 10, 1992 - CONRADO BUNAG, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96189 July 14, 1992 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 100866 July 14, 1992 - REBECCA BOYER-ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 75879 July 15, 1992 - VIRGINIA SECRETARIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 93752 July 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAROY T. BUENAFLOR

  • G.R. No. 97147 July 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX QUERRER

  • G.R. No. 100482 July 15, 1992 lab

    NEW VALLEY TIMES PRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 68102 July 16, 1992 - GEORGE MCKEE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 89265 July 17, 1992 - ARTURO G. EUDELA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92383 July 17, 1992 - SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94493 July 17, 1992 - ALEJANDRO ATIENZA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95778 July 17, 1992 - SKYWORLD CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOC. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM.

  • G.R. Nos. 64725-26 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ALACAR

  • G.R. No. 77396 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO T. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 84250 July 20, 1992 - DAYA MARIA TOL-NOQUERA v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

  • G.R. Nos. 93411-12 July 20, 1992 - ENCARNACION FLORES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 94534 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO BIGCAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 95844 July 20, 1992 - COMMANDO SECURITY AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96712 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 104678 July 20, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 95254-55 July 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS U. ABUYAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 96091 July 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO L. HOBLE

  • G.R. No. 73679 July 23, 1992 - HONESTO B. VILLAROSA v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 79903 July 23, 1992 - CONTECH CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82293 July 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO B. MADRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 85490 July 23, 1992 - CLUB FILIPINO, INC. v. JESUS C. SEBASTIAN

  • G.R. No. 90856 July 23, 1992 - ARTURO DE GUZMAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 95067 July 23, 1992 - GERARDO ARANAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95900 July 23, 1992 - JULIUS C. OUANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96914 July 23, 1992 - CECILIA U. LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100493 July 23, 1992 - HEIRS OF JAIME BINUYA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102070 July 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID A. ALFECHE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 90270 July 24, 1992 - ARMANDO V. SIERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90318 July 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFERIO IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. 91847 July 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO MARTOS

  • G.R. No. 97816 July 24, 1992 - MERRILL LYNCH FUTURES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.C. No. 1129 July 27, 1992 - PERFECTO MENDOZA v. ALBERTO B. MALA

  • G.R. No. 97092 July 27, 1992 - PEPSI-COLA SALES AND ADVERTISING UNION v. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 2984 July 29, 1992 - RODOLFO M. BERNARDO, JR. v. ISMAEL F. MEJIA

  • G.R. No. 40145 July 29, 1992 - SEVERO SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50260 July 29, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 68037 July 29, 1992 - PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP. v. MAXIMO M. JAPZON

  • G.R. No. 94547 July 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID S. SAULO

  • G.R. No. 94590 July 29, 1992 - CHINA AIRLINES LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94771 July 29, 1992 - RAMON J. VELORIA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS