Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > September 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 96255 September 18, 1992 - HERCULES INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 96255. September 18, 1992.]

HERCULES INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAQUESMA, MED-ARBITER MELCHOR S. LIM AND THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, Respondents.

Demosthenes S. Baban for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for public respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR RELATIONS; CERTIFICATION ELECTION; AS A GENERAL RULE, EMPLOYER IS NOT A PARTY THERETO; EXCEPTION. — In a long line of decisions, this Court has undeviatingly ruled that the employer is not a party to a certification election which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers (Rizal Workers Union v. Ferrer-Calleja, 186 SCRA 431). In the choice of their collective bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an intruder. His participation, to put it mildly, deserves no encouragement (Consolidated Farms, Inc. v. Noriel, 84 SCRA 469; Filipino Metals Corp. v. Ople, 107 SCRA 211). The only instance when the employer may be involved in that process is when it is obliged to file a petition for certification election on its workers’ request to bargain collectively pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code. After the order for a certification election issues, the employer’s involvement ceases, and it becomes a neutral bystander.


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


This petition for certiorari * seeks to set aside the resolution ** dated September 17, 1990 of the Undersecretary of Labor in the case entitled, "National Federation of Labor v. Hercules Industries, Inc." denying the herein petitioner’s appeal from respondent Med-Arbiter’s Order dated May 25, 1990 declaring the National Federation of Labor (NFL) as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file workers/employees of Hercules Industries, Inc.

Hercules Industries, Inc., herein petitioner, is a corporation duly registered under Philippine laws which employs more or less one hundred eighty (180) workers.

On July 30, 1987, private respondent National Federation of Labor (NFL), a legitimate labor federation, filed a petition for certification election alleging that the existing collective bargaining agreement would expire in August, 1987 and that it enjoys the support of more than twenty per cent (20%) of the rank and file employees in the bargaining unit.

On August 21, 1987, by agreement of the parties, the Med-Arbiter issued an order for the conduct of a certification election with the following choices:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) National Federation of Labor (NFL);

(2) Hercules Employees Labor Union (HELU); and

(3) No Union.

On September 21, 1987, a pre-election conference was conducted. The parties, however, could not agree on the list of qualified voters who would participate in the election. Specifically, Hercules Industries, Inc. charged that the list included ninety eight (98) scabs; sixteen (16) capatazes; eight (8) security guards; and nine (9) managerial employees.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On October 26, 1987, the Med-Arbiter issued an order, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, judgment should be, as it is hereby promulgated, ordering the immediate conduct of the Certification Election within fifteen (15) days from date hereof, at the premises of the Hercules Industries, Inc., Laih, Siay, Zamboanga del Sur, with all the regular rank and file workers appearing in the payroll of July, 1987, and the strikers, who have not executed ‘Quitclaim’ and voluntarily accepted separation pay, are eligible participants in the Certification Election, except those that are hereinbelow expressly and categorically excluded by virtue of their being classified as managerial employees, legally separated and barred under the contemplation of law.

"A. MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES (Excluded).

"x       x       x

"B. SECURITY FORCE DEPARTMENT (Excluded).

"x       x       x

"C. STRIKES EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE EXECUTED DEED OF QUITCLAIM AND VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED SEPARATION PAY

(Excluded)

"x       x       x

"The representation officer-designate is hereby ordered to post immediately within five (5) days prior to the date of election the notices of Certification Election together with the master list of eligible voters in conspicuous places at the premises of the Respondent." (pp. 27-28, Rollo.)

On November 4, 1987, NFL appealed the order to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR Case No. A-1-10-88 LRD Case No. 014-87) on the following grounds:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"1. The Med-Arbiter erred in unqualifiedly accepting all the names appearing in the July 1987 payroll as eligible voters and in allowing the 98 contract replacement worker to vote; and

"2. The Med-Arbiter erred in disregarding the fact that an earlier order for certification election had already been handed down and that the workers were on strike." (p. 29, Rollo.)

Pending the resolution of the NFL’s appeal, a certification election was conducted on November 7, 1990.

On January 6, 1988, BLR Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja of the DOLE rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby granted and the certification election held on 7 November 1987 declared null and void.

"Let a new certification election among the rank and file workers of Hercules Industries, Inc. be held. The payroll of July 1987 excluding the [ninety eight] 98 scab replacement, shall be the basis of the voters’ list." (p. 32, Rollo.)

On April 4, 1990, a pre-election conference attended by the management of Hercules Industries, Inc. and NFL’s representatives was held at the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office in Zamboanga City. The NFL asked that a certification election be immediately scheduled on May 4, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. to be held in the Barangay Hall, Bato, Siay, Zamboanga del Sur.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Accordingly, a certification election was held on May 4, 1990 with the following results:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR 89 Votes

"2. HERCULES LUMBER & EMPLOYEES

LABOR UNION 0 (Zero)

"3. MANAGEMENT (NO UNION) 0 (Zero)

"4. SPOILED/INVALID VOTES 2 (Votes)

TOTAL VOTES CAST: 91 Votes"

(p. 188, Rollo.)

On May 25, 1990, Med-Arbiter Melchor S. Lim issued a resolution declaring and certifying the National Federation of Labor as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of the petitioner.

On July 5, 1990, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration/appeal with the DOLE. It was denied on September 17, 1990 by Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laquesma on the grounds that Sections 3 and 4, Rule 6, Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code on protests had not been followed; that the records disclose that no protest was made before the election, nor formalized within five (5) days after the election, as provided for by the rules; and the DOLE has not found any legal obstacle to the proclamation of the NFL as the collective bargaining agent of petitioner’s workers.

On September 29, 1990, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied on October 26, 1990 by Undersecretary Laquesma.

Hence, the present recourse.

On January 21, 1991, Zamboanga Rubber Workers Union, a duly organized labor union affiliated with the Philippine Integrated Industries Labor Union, filed a motion for intervention in this Court alleging that it had requested the petitioner in writing to recognize it as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of its workers. The motion was noted by this Court without action.

The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the petitioner, Hercules Industries, Inc., as employer, may question the validity of the certification election among its rank-and-file employees. The answer is no.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

In a long line of decisions, this Court has undeviatingly ruled that the employer is not a party to a certification election which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers (Rizal Workers Union v. Ferrer-Calleja, 186 SCRA 431). In the choice of their collective bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an intruder. His participation, to put it mildly, deserves no encouragement (Consolidated Farms, Inc. v. Noriel, 84 SCRA 469; Filipino Metals Corp. v. Ople, 107 SCRA 211).

The only instance when the employer may be involved in that process is when it is obliged to file a petition for certification election on its workers’ request to bargain collectively pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code. After the order for a certification election issues, the employer’s involvement ceases, and it becomes a neutral bystander. (Rizal Workers’ Union v. Calleja, supra.).

In this case, the Solicitor General correctly observed that while the employees themselves never requested the petitioner to bargain collectively, still, they did not object to the results of the certification election. Hence, petitioner’s appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations from the Med-Arbiter’s Order certifying the NFL as the exclusive bargaining agent of its rank and file employees, and its filing of this petition for certiorari with us, must be rejected. The employer’s intervention in the certification election of its workers is frowned upon by law.

In any event, petitioner’s challenge against the validity of the certification election of May 4, 1990 is devoid of merit. Its allegations that no notice of the certification election had been issued, hence, no copies of said notice were given to it, nor posted in conspicuous places within the company’s premises; that the payroll of July 1987 was not used as the basis of the voters’ list; and that only fifteen (15) out of the ninety eight (98) voters signed their names showing that they actually voted, were belied by the minutes of the pre-election conference (Annex "A" of Comment of private respondent) which showed that petitioner was duly notified of the conference and attended the same, and that during said conference the Med-Arbiter set the certification election on May 4, 1990.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The minutes of the certification election (Annex "C" of private respondent’s Comment) also show that "the list of the names of the voters were (sic) copied from the payroll of 1987 per order of the Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, Manila, . . ." (p. 188, Rollo).

Finally, the same minutes certified that: "The certification election just concluded was conducted in the most just, honest and freely (sic) manner without untoward happening. Further, we certify that the result above is true and correct" (p. 188, Rollo) thereby refuting petitioner’s allegation that only fifteen (15) out of ninety eight (98) workers signed the master list to show that they actually voted again.

Besides, neither the records of the case nor the minutes of the certification election show that petitioner protested the conduct of the certification election as provided in Section 3 of Rule VI (ELECTIONS) of Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 3. Representation officer may rule on any on-the-spot questions. — The Representation officer may rule on any on-the-spot question arising from the conduct of the election. The interested party may however, file a protest with the representation officer before the close of the proceedings.

"Protests not so raised are deemed waived. Such protests shall be contained in the minutes of the proceedings." (Emphasis ours.)chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On the basis of the election minutes, which are the only relevant and competent evidence on the conduct of the election, the Med-Arbiter did not err in declaring the NFL as the duly elected exclusive bargaining agent of the petitioner’s rank and file workers. That finding should be accorded not only respect but also finality by this Court for it is supported by substantial evidence (Chua v. NLRC, 182 SCRA 354).

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the assailed decision of the NLRC, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



* Atty. Demosthenes S. Baban for petitioner; and the Solicitor General for the public respondents.

** Issued by Undersecretary of Labor, Bienvenido E. Laquesma.




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






September-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. RTJ-88-22 September 1, 1992 - JOEL GARGANERA v. ENRIQUE JOCSON

  • G.R. No. 32075 September 1, 1992 - SIAO TIAO HONG v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 32657 September 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 70746-47 September 1, 1992 - BIENVENIDO O. MARCOS v. FERNANDO S. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86051 September 1, 1992 - JAIME LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86844 September 1, 1992 - SPOUSES CESAR DE RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 92-8-027-SC September 2, 1992 - RE: JOSEFINA V. PALON

  • G.R. No. 43747 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46025 September 2, 1992 - FLORITA T. BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50618 September 2, 1992 - LEOPOLDO FACINAL, ET AL. v. AGAPITO I. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51289 September 2, 1992 - RODOLFO ENCARNACION v. DYNASTY AMUSEMENT CENTER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56865 September 2, 1992 - IRENEO TOBIAS, ET AL. v. TEMISTOCLES B. DIEZ

  • G.R. No. 61043 September 2, 1992 - DELTA MOTOR SALES CORPORATION v. NIU KIM DUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 62554-55 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70120 September 2, 1992 - CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73198 September 2, 1992 - PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74618 September 2, 1992 - ANA LIM KALAW v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75242 September 2, 1992 - MANILA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78777 September 2, 1992 - MERLIN P. CAIÑA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80812 September 2, 1992 - LUZ E. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84256 September 2, 1992 - ALEJANDRA RIVERA OLAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87318 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME G. SERDAN

  • G.R. No. 91535 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO L. DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92461 September 2, 1992 - ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92789 September 2, 1992 - SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92795-96 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE B. TANTIADO

  • G.R. No. 93141 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ESTANISLAO GENERALAO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 93634 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MASALIM CASIM

  • G.R. No. 94918 September 2, 1992 - DANILO I. SUAREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95249 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95843 September 2, 1992 - EDILBERTO C. ABARQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95921 September 2, 1992 - SPOUSES ROBERT DINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96333 September 2, 1992 - EDUARDO C. DE VERA v. ERNESTO L. PINEDA

  • G.R. Nos. 96952-56 September 2, 1992 - SMI FISH INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97408-09 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MORENO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97805 September 2, 1992 - NILO H. RAYMUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99050 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONWAY B. OMAWENG

  • G.R. No. 99359 September 2, 1992 - ORLANDO M. ESCAREAL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100970 September 2, 1992 - FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103269 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO VALIENTE

  • A.M. No. P-90-418 September 3, 1992 - EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD v. ALFONSO B. MELGAR

  • G.R. No. 86695 September 3, 1992 - MARIA ELENA MALAGA, ET AL. v. MANUEL R. PENACHOS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90693 September 3, 1992 - SPARTAN SECURITY & DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91284 September 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO T. PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 92310 September 3, 1992 - AGRICULTURAL AND HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77285 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO ABUYEN

  • G.R. No. 83995 September 4, 1992 - BENJAMIN EDAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 88788 September 4, 1992 - RESTITUTO DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89278 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDITO S. SICAT

  • G.R. No. 94375 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO A. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 94825 September 4, 1992 - PHIL. FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97111-13 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICA P. PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 101469 September 4, 1992 - MALAYAN INTEGRATED INDUSTRIES, CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101539 September 4, 1992 - CECILE DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102397 September 4, 1992 - BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105120 September 4, 1992 - SIMPLICIO C. GRIÑO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105346 September 4, 1992 - RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93842 September 7, 1992 - ERNANDO C. LAYNO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92988 September 9, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO TIWAKEN

  • G.R. No. 55741 September 11, 1992 - LUZ LATAGAN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73071 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO S. ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 82586 September 11, 1992 - SALVADOR M. MISON, ET AL. v. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91159 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY A. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 91915 September 11, 1992 - DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97441 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASINILLO

  • G.R. No. 98062 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGOBERTO YBEAS

  • G.R. No. 103903 September 11, 1992 - MELANIO D. SAMPAYAN, ET AL. v. RAUL. A. DAZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57475 September 14, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO NERI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74851 September 14, 1992 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • A.C. No. 3248 September 18, 1992 - DOMINGO R. MARCELO v. ADRIANO S. JAVIER, SR.

  • G.R. No. 70890 September 18, 1992 - CRESENCIO LIBI, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73919 September 18, 1992 - NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75915-16 September 18, 1992 - SPS. GO IT BUN, ET AL. v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84917 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUEROBEN A. POLIZON

  • G.R. No. 86218 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELSIE B. BAGISTA

  • G.R. No. 91001 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILFERIO F. SILLO

  • G.R. No. 94511-13 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO C. VALENCIA

  • G.R. No. 94828 September 18, 1992 - SPOUSES ROMULO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ASIAN CONSUMER AND INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95456 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO A. BAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 95540 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCHIE Q. DISTRITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96255 September 18, 1992 - HERCULES INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96329 September 18, 1992 - MABUHAY VINYL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97918 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR E. JAPSAY

  • G.R. No. 102141 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SABORNIDO

  • G.R. No. 105227 September 18, 1992 - LEANDRO I. VERCELES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61218 September 23, 1992 - LIBERTAD SANTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81883 September 23, 1992 - KNITJOY MANUFACTURING, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83580 September 23, 1992 - ENRICO SY v. ARTURO A. ROMERO

  • G.R. Nos. 85403-06 September 23, 1992 - ANTONIO T. TIONGSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101706 September 23, 1992 - CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102693 September 23, 1992 - SPOUSES AGOSTO MUÑOZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85086 September 24, 1991

    ARSENIO P. BUENAVENTURA ENTERPRISES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90254 September 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS C. FLORIDA

  • G.R. No. 97765 September 24, 1992 - KHOSROW MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44936 September 25, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91114 September 25, 1992 - NELLY LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91359 September 25, 1992 - VETERANS MANPOWER AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58027 September 28, 1992 - GOLDEN COUNTRY FARMS, INC. v. SANVAR DEVELOPMENT CORP.

  • G.R. No. 97431 September 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JONATHAN J. ALABAN

  • G.R. No. 99046 September 28, 1992 - AQUALYN CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100574 September 28, 1992 - SPS. MARINO SAPUGAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102381 September 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO H. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 53630 September 30, 1992 - ENRIQUE KHO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82531 September 30, 1992 - DOMINGO T. MENDOZA v. MARIA MENDOZA NAVARETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82630 September 30, 1992 - MARIA GULANG v. GENOVEVA NADAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94461 September 30, 1992 - INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97356 September 30, 1992 - ARTURO C. CORONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105017 September 30, 1992 - PABLO NIDOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.