Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > July 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 95844 July 20, 1992 - COMMANDO SECURITY AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 95844. July 20, 1992.]

COMMANDO SECURITY AGENCY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NEMESIO DECIERDO, Respondent.

Antonio O. Montana, Sr. for Petitioner.

Antonio A. Billiones, Sr. for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; ABANDONMENT; CLEAR PRONOUNCEMENT THEREOF NO LONGER NECESSARY WHEN EMPLOYEE IS NO LONGER INTERESTED IN HIS JOB. — The NLRC did find that Decierdo had given up his job and chose separation pay in lieu or reinstatement. There was no need for the Executive Labor Arbiter to fix a period within which to require Decierdo to report for work considering that the latter is no longer interested in his job and had claimed for separation benefits in lieu of reinstatement. Petitioner should not begrudge the Labor Arbiter’s ‘failure’ to fix a return-to-work period considering that the Labor Arbiter practically found Decierdo to have abandoned his job and, besides, his claim for separation pay was not granted. If there was anyone who should have been interested in being recalled to work, it should have been Decierdo himself and not petitioner.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS; MERELY REQUIRES NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. — Regarding the petitioner’s allegation that it was denied due process, we have time and again pointed out that procedural due process merely requires notice and opportunity to be heard (Var Orient Shipping Company v. Achacoso, 161 SCRA 732, Bermejo v. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764) which the petitioner was given when it filed its position paper. The petitioner was properly notified and even took part in the conciliation conference for the amicable settlement of the case. It was aware of the nature and specifics of the charges against it but failed to refute them expecting that a hearing would be called. However, the Labor Arbiter proceeded to decide the case based on the parties’ position papers, the records submitted by petitioner, and the report and the computations made by the Corporate Auditing Examiner regarding the sums which Decierdo was entitled to recover. That procedure complied with the Revised Rules of the NLRC, particularly Sections 2 and 3.

3. ID.; DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES; RIGHTS OF WORKERS WHO ARE PLACED IN A CONTRACTUALLY DISADVANTAGED POSITION SHOULD BE PROTECTED. — Petitioner’s contention that Decierdo is estopped from complaining about the 25% deduction from his salary representing petitioner’s share in procuring job placement for him, is not well taken. That provision of the employment contract was illegal and inequitous, hence, null and void. The constitutional provisions on social justice (Sections 9 and 10, Article II) and protection to labor (Sec. 18, Article II) in the declaration of Principles and State Policies, impose upon the courts the duty to be ever vigilant in protecting the rights of workers who are placed in a contractually disadvantaged position and who sign waivers or provisions contrary to law and public policy (Mercury Drug Co., Inc. v. Dayao, 117 SCRA 99, 116). We affirm the NLRC’s ruling that: "It goes without saying that respondent may not deduct its so-called ‘share’ from the salaries of its guards without the latter’s express consent and if such deductions are not allowed by law. This is notwithstanding any previous agreement or understanding between them. Any such agreement or contract is void ab initio being contrary to law and public policy (Mercury Drug Co. v. Nardo Dayao, G.R. No. 30432, September 30, 1982)."


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


Petitioner assails the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission dated May 26, 1989 and September 25, 1990, affirming with modification the decision of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. 11-0200075-88.

Private respondent Nemesio Decierdo was a security guard of the petitioner since February 1981. In April 1987, petitioner entered into a contract to provide guarding services to the Alsons Development and Investment Corporation (ALSONS for brevity) at its Aldevinco Building on Claro M. Recto Avenue, Davao City, for a period of one year, i.e., from April 11, 1987 to April 10, 1988, unless renewed under such terms and conditions as may be mutually acceptance. The number of guards to be assigned by the petitioner would depend on ALSON’s demand, sometimes two (2) guards on a daily shift, and sometimes four (4) guards. Decierdo was one of the guards assigned to the Aldevinco Building by the petitioner.

On February 9, 1988, Maria Mila D. Samonte, Properties Administration Head on ALSONS, requested the petitioner for a "periodic reshuffling" of guards. The pertinent portion of her letter reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Our corporation offers spaces to tenants including services of maintenance and security. The latter causes us to hire your agency’s services. It is therefore clearly understood that Aldevinco assures tenants of security of their properties found in Aldevinco’s compound, and likewise Commando Security Service Agency assures Aldevinco the same.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"We hope that the above shall be clearly explained to the incoming guards, we requested for a period reshuffling. We do extend our gratitude to your immediate services in response to or request in the past." (pp. 45-A-46, Rollo.)

Pursuant to that reasonable request of its client, petitioner on February 10, 1988 served the following recall order on Decierdo:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Report to this HQs for instruction. You are hereby recalled from your present post at Aldevinco Bldg. as per Rotation Policy Order by the management effective 11 February 1988." (p. 46, Rollo.)

On the same date, February 10, 1988, Detail Order 02-016 was issued to Decierdo assigning him to the Pacific Oil Company in Bunawan, Davao City, with instruction to report to the manager, but Decierdo refused to accept the assignment as shown by the annotation at the bottom of the Order, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Refused to accept assignment he is going to rest for a while." (p. 54, Rollo.)

On February 11, 1988, which was the effective date of the detail order, Decierdo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, underpayment of wages, overtime pay, night premium, 13th month pay, holiday pay, rest day pay and incentive leave pay.

On June 28, 1988, the Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in consideration of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Ordering respondent Commando Security Agency to pay complaint Security Agency to pay complainant Nemesio Decierdo the total amount of THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN AND 92/100 PESOS (P33,877.92). as salary, holiday and rest day pay differentials, 13th month pay differentials and service incentive leave pay; and

"2. Dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, overtime pay and night premium for lack of merit." (pp. 19-20, Rollo.)

Petitioner appealed to the NLRC which on May 26, 1989, affirmed with modification the decision of the Labor Arbiter, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the amount of P1,498.39 representing complainant’s accountability with (sic) respondent is hereby ordered deducted from the total award." (p. 58, Rollo.)

Hence, this petition for certiorari alleging that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. in failing to make a clear pronouncement that Decierdo had abandoned his employment as he went on AWOL and therefore is considered resigned;chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

2. in denying petitioner due process of law, or a right to be heard;

3. in not considering that Decierdo is in estoppel; and

4. in not holding that petitioner is entitled to a 25% share of his monthly salary as agreed between them.

The petition for certiorari is without merit.

The first ground of the petition is not well taken for the NLRC did find that Decierdo had given up his job and chose separation pay in lieu or reinstatement.

"Anent the first issue, suffice it to state that there was no need for the Executive Labor Arbiter to fix a period within which to require complainant to report for work considering that the latter is no longer interested in his job and had claimed for separation benefits in lieu of reinstatement. Why respondent had begrudged the Labor Arbiter’s ‘failure’ to fix a return-to-work period escapes us considering that the Labor Arbiter practically found complainant to have abandoned his job and, besides, complainant’s claims for separation pay was not granted. If there was anyone who should have been interested in being recalled to work, it should have been complainant himself and not Respondent." (pp. 54-55, Rollo.)

As a result, the NLRC dismissed the charge of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against the petitioner and denied Decierdo’s claim for separation pay.

Regarding the petitioner’s allegation that it was denied due process, we have time and again pointed out that procedural due process merely requires notice and opportunity to be heard (Var Orient Shipping Company v. Achacoso, 161 SCRA 732, Bermejo v. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764) which the petitioner was given when it filed its position paper. The petitioner was properly notified and even took part in the conciliation conference for the amicable settlement of the case. It was aware of the nature and specifics of the charges against it but failed to refute them expecting that a hearing would be called. However, the Labor Arbiter proceeded to decide the case based on the parties’ position papers, the records submitted by petitioner, and the report and the computations made by the Corporate Auditing Examiner regarding the sums which Decierdo was entitled to recover. That procedure complied with the Revised Rules of the NLRC, particularly Sections 2 and 3, which provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 2. Submission of position papers. — During the immediately thereafter, the Labor Arbiter shall require the parties to simultaneously submit to him their respective verified position papers, which shall cover only the issues raised in the complaint, accompanied by all supporting documents then available to them and the affidavits of their witnesses which shall take the place of their direct, testimony. The parties shall thereafter not be allowed to allege, or present evidence to prove, facts not referred to and any cause or causes of action not included in their complaint or position papers, affidavits and other documents. The parties shall furnish each other with copies of the position papers, together with the supporting affidavits and documents submitted by them.

"Sec. 3. Determination of necessity of hearing. — Immediately after the submission by the parties of their position papers and supporting proofs, the Labor Arbiter shall determine whether there is a need for a formal hearing or investigation. At this state, he may, in his discretion, and for the purpose of making such determination, elicit pertinent facts or information, including documentary evidence, if any, from any party or witness to complete, as far as possible, the facts of the case. Facts or information so elicited may serve as basis for his clarification or simplication and limitation of the issues in the case, encouraging for this purpose the submission by the parties of admissions and stipulations of fact to abbreviate the proceedings. He shall participate actively in the preparation of such stipulations, making suggestions on what facts the parties need not prove." (Emphasis supplied.)chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The NLRC correctly held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . the Executive Labor Arbiter did not err when she dispensed with a full blown hearing there being no necessity for one. Under Section 3 of the same rule as above-cited, the Labor Arbiter may, in his sound discretion, dispense with a hearing and require, instead, the parties to file their respective position papers together with all the supporting proofs. . . . all that respondent had to do was present its payrolls and other records which it is required to keep and maintain (see Sec. 6-12, Rule X, Book III of Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code) and it could already be determined on the face thereof if complainant’s monetary claims had actually been paid or not, . . . complainant’s entitlements were computed by the Corporate Auditing Examiner (p. 63, Records) on the basis of respondent’s records which was secured by virtue of a subpoena duces tecum (p. 43, record). Respondent should have met head-on the accuracy of correctness of the computations and not skirt the issue by dwelling merely on technicalities by complaining that the records were irregularly procured." (p. 56, Rollo.)

Petitioner’s contention that Decierdo is estopped from complaining about the 25% deduction from his salary representing petitioner’s share in procuring job placement for him, is not well taken. That provision of the employment contract was illegal and inequitous, hence, null and void.

The constitutional provisions on social justice (Sections 9 and 10, Article II) and protection to labor (Sec. 18, Article II) in the declaration of Principles and State Policies, impose upon the courts the duty to be ever vigilant in protecting the rights of workers who are placed in a contractually disadvantaged position and who sign waivers or provisions contrary to law and public policy (Mercury Drug Co., Inc. v. Dayao, 117 SCRA 99, 116). We affirm the NLRC’s ruling that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It goes without saying that respondent may not deduct its so-called ‘share’ from the salaries of its guards without the latter’s express consent and if such deductions are not allowed by law. This is notwithstanding any previous agreement or understanding between them. Any such agreement or contract is void ab initio being contrary to law and public policy (Mercury Drug Co. v. Nardo Dayao, G.R. No. 30432, September 30, 1982)." (pp. 57-58, Rollo.)

WHEREFORE, finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission in rendering the assailed decision, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.




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