Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > September 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 83580 September 23, 1992 - ENRICO SY v. ARTURO A. ROMERO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 83580. September 23, 1992.]

ENRICO SY, Petitioner, v. HON. ARTURO A. ROMERO, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 120, and DR. SALUSTIANO L. CASTILLO, Respondents.

Ross B. Bautista for Petitioner.

Juan T. Aquino for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR APPEAL. — The special civil action of certiorari under rule 65 of the Rules of Court will not lie as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. The exception to this rule is when such right to appeal was lost through no fault of the party entitled thereto.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; MUST BE FILED WITHIN REASONABLE TIME; FILING AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR FROM ISSUANCE OF ASSAILED ORDER, NOT WITHIN REASONABLE TIME. — Even granting for the sake of argument that said special civil action may be availed of, the fact remains that the instant petition was filed nearly one (1) year and four (4) months after the assailed order was rendered by the respondent Judge. An unreasonable length of time had thus passed before the petitioner acted. This Court will not place a premium on apathy or sloth. As the maxim goes, Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt — The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

3. ID.; ID.; UNLAWFUL DETAINER; EJECTMENT; JUDGMENT THEREON BINDS NOT ONLY THE DEFENDANT BUT ALSO THOSE PERSONS CLAIMING TITLE UNDER HIM. — A judgment in an ejectment case binds not only the defendant but also those who have claims against the former, this is because no one may assert a right superior to the rights of a defendant in an ejectment suit.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — In the instant case, the petitioner’s rights are limited to those which may be exercised by a mere sublessee or assignee, and even if he were not impleaded as a co-defendant, he is bound by the judgment against his mother Antonia Lumbang.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ORDER OF DEMOLITION, FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT; CASE AT BAR. — However, although the decision in the ejectment case binds the petitioner, the execution thereof, or the issuance of a demolition order, falls within the jurisdiction of the City Court, now Metropolitan Trial Court, of Kalookan City which rendered the decision in Civil Case No. 13199. In an ejectment case, the appellate court which affirms a decision brought before it on appeal cannot decree its execution in the guise of an execution of the affirming decision. The only exception to that is when said appellate court grants an execution pending appeal. What Branch 120 of the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan should have done was to make an entry of judgment in Civil Case No. C-10086 after the decision of 29 October 1982 became final; such procedure is outlined in Section 2, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court. Thereafter, the RTC should have remanded the case, together with the records of Civil Case No. 13199 which were forwarded to it as a consequence of the appeal interposed therefrom, to the court of origin — the City Court (now Metropolitan Trial Court) of Kalookan City. The motion for execution should then be filed with the latter court. Accordingly, respondent Judge should not have acted on the motion for the execution of the 29 October 1982 decision in Civil Case No. C-10086 or granted the motion for the issuance of an order of demolition. Accordingly, that portion of his Order of 27 February 1987 granting the said motion is void.


D E C I S I O N


DAVIDE, JR., J.:


Petitioner seeks to annul an order of demolition, issued long after the finality of the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirming the ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) in an ejectment case solely on the ground that the said case was incipiently and fatally flawed as it was not brought against the real party in interest.

In the Resolution of 27 June 1987, this Court ordered the respondents to comment on the petition and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondent Judge from enforcing the order of demolition which he issued on 27 February 1987 in ,Civil Case No. C-10086.chanrobles law library

After the private respondent filed his Comment and the petitioner submitted his reply thereto, this Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda which they subsequently did.

The pleadings disclose the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Private respondent is the owner of a parcel of land located in Maypajo, Kalookan City otherwise known as the Doña Leoncia Subdivision. One of the lessees therein is Antonia Lumbang.

On 29 May 1979, private respondent filed a complaint for ejectment against Antonia Lumbang with the City Court of Kalookan which was docketed as Civil Case No. 13199 and raffled off to Branch II thereof. On 22 March 1982, said court handed down a decision 1 against Lumbang, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiff, ordering the defendant or anyone claiming right under her, to:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Vacate the premises in question subject of this litigation and surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff;

2. Pay the sum of P500.00 as attorney’s fees; and

3. Pay the costs of the suit.

Counterclaim interposed by the defendant is hereby dismissed for lack of merit."cralaw virtua1aw library

The decision reveals that herein petitioner testified in said case; such testimony is summarized by the court in this manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Enrico Sy declared that he is presently residing at 106 Pateros St., Maypajo, Kalookan City, the subject matter of this instant case; that he was not yet born when said house was built thereon; that he is (sic) living in said house since January 30, 1948, and presently (sic) staying thereat together with his wife, mother, brothers and sisters; that he has no knowledge in (sic) the assessment of properties but his house would now cost about P70,000.00 based on the costs of materials used." 2 (Emphasis supplied)chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Petitioner does not deny the allegation in paragraph 7 of the Comment filed with this Court that he is the son of Antonia Lumbang. 3

Antonia Lumbang appealed the aforementioned decision to the then Court of First Instance of Kalookan City The case was docketed as Civil Case No. C-10086 and was raffled off to Branch 12 thereof. On 29 October 1982, said court handed down a decision 4 affirming in toto the appealed decision. Consequently, the decision of the Court of First Instance became final. Private respondent then filed a motion for execution which the court granted. Pursuant thereto, the sheriff issued a Notice of Ejectment which he served on petitioner Enrico Sy on 24 December 1986. The latter then filed on 23 January 1987 in Civil Case No. C-10086 (now before Branch 120 of the Regional Trial Court) a Motion to Intervene and to Annul Decision and/or Judgment with Prayer for a Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, 5 alleging therein that he has been the actual, legal and duly registered owner of the house since 10 February 1976 when he bought the same from Antonia Lumbang. In support of such statement, he attached a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale and tax receipts evidencing his payments of the real estate taxes due on said house. He further alleges that since he was not made a party in the ejectment case, the decision therein was fatally defective since it was directed against a person who had ceased to be a real party in interest; Antonia Lumbang died on 24 February 1984. Moreover, he posits that the City Court acquired no jurisdiction over the case because the lot where the house stands is "within the jurisdiction of the National Housing Authority." Acting on this motion, respondent Judge Arturo A. Romero, in an order dated 9 February 1987, granted the petitioner ten (10) days to file his complaint in intervention. On this same date, private respondent filed a manifestation praying that the order allowing a complaint in intervention be recalled and an order of demolition be issued.

On 27 February 1987, Judge Romero issued an order setting aside the Order of 9 February 1987; denying the Motion To Annul Decision and/or Judgment with Prayer for Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction; and granting the motion for demolition. 6

Instead of filing a motion to reconsider the said order or appealing therefrom, petitioner filed on 15 May 1987 with the RTC of Kalookan City a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the above mentioned 27 February 1987 Order and to annul the decision in Civil Case No. C-10086. This new case was docketed as Civil Case No. C-99 and was assigned to Branch 121 of said court. Although no copy of that petition was attached to the instant petition, the petitioner does not deny the private respondent’s allegation in his Comment that the former merely reiterated in the new petition the grounds already raised in the motion to intervene and annul the decision in Civil Case No. C-10086. 7

Earlier, on 29 April 1987, Deputy Sheriff Cesar L. Cruz, pursuant to the order of respondent Judge dated 27 February 1987 in Civil Case No. C-10086, issued a Notice of Demolition addressed to "Mrs. Antonia Lumbang or any person claiming right under her." 8

On 2 March 1988, Branch 121 of the RTC issued an order 9 in Civil Case No. C-99 denying the application for a writ of preliminary injunction and dismissing said case on the ground that it has no authority to interfere with the judgment of a court of coordinate or concurrent jurisdiction. 10

Instead of moving for a reconsideration of, appealing from or filing a special civil action for certiorari to nullify this order, petitioner filed on 14 June 1988 the instant petition against the respondent Judge and Sheriff. He reiterates in this petition the grounds upon which he anchored his motion to intervene and to annul the decision in both Civil Cases Nos. C-10086 and C-99; he then prays that a temporary restraining order be issued directing the respondents to desist from further proceeding against him in Civil Case No C-10086.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

On 27 June 1988, this Court (Second Division) issued a resolution requiring respondents to comment on the petition and directing the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining the latter from enforcing the 27 February 1987 demolition order issued by the respondent Judge in Civil Case No. C-10086. 11

After the private respondent filed his Comment 12 and the petitioner submitted his reply thereto, this Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda, 13 which they subsequently did.

The petition is bereft of merit.

Petitioner took this recourse to revive his grievances in Civil Case No. C-10086 after he allowed (a) the Order of 27 February 1987 denying his motion to intervene and to annul the decision in said civil case and (b) the order of Branch 121 of the RTC in Civil Case No. C-99 dismissing the same, to separately lapse into finality. This petition, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, may then be considered as a substitute for the remedy of appeal, a right which the petitioner lost through his or his counsel’s fault. It is settled that the said special civil action will not lie as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. 14 The exception to this rule is when such right to appeal was lost through no fault of the party entitled thereto. 15

Even granting for the sake of argument that said special civil action may be availed of, the fact remains that the instant petition was filed nearly one (1) year and four (4) months after the assailed order was rendered by the respondent Judge. An unreasonable length of time had thus passed before the petitioner acted. This Court will not place a premium on apathy or sloth. As the maxim goes, Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt — The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

In Allied Leasing & Finance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 16 this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does not specify any period for the filing of the petition for certiorari and mandamus. (Contreras v. Villaraza, 99 SCRA 329 [1980]. We have consistently ruled that a pleading filed under Rule 65 should be within a reasonable period of time. Thus, we stated that ‘the yardstick to measure the timeliness of a petition for certiorari is the reasonableness of the duration of time that had expired from the commission of the acts complained of up to the institution of the proceedings to annul the same’ (San Juan v. Cuento, 160 SCRA 277 [1988], citing Cortez v. CFI of Cadiz, 52 Phil. 214 [1928]; Centenera v. Yatco, 106 Phil. 1064 [1960], Province of Misamis Occidental v. Catolico, 23 SCRA 1295 [1968]; Toledo v. Pardo, 118 SCRA 566 [1982])." chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Moreover, even if We disregard the foregoing exposition, the fact remains that it is not actually the 27 February 1987 Order of the respondent Judge that lies at the bottom of the instant petition, but rather, it is the 29 October 1982 decision in Civil Case No. C-10086 affirming the 22 March 1982 decision of the City Court of Kalookan City in Civil Case No. 13199 - which City Court decision petitioner claims to be null and void for having been directed against a defendant who was no longer the real party in interest as the house in question was earlier sold to the petitioner — which serves as basis for the same. This theory is not worthy of any consideration for, in the first place, if indeed the petitioner had purchased the house from his mother Antonia Lumbang — a fact he deliberately suppressed in his pleadings — long before the filing of the ejectment case, he should have intervened in the said case to assert his ownership of the house. As it happened, he merely testified for his mother and failed to unequivocally assert his ownership over the house. The so-called deed of sale in his favor was not even offered in evidence In the said case. On the contrary, his mother remained headstrong in her claim that she paid the rentals for the premises until the private respondent refused to accept payments upon the filing of the ejectment case, thereafter, she averred that she just deposited the rentals in a bank.

The pertinent portion of her testimony as summarized by the City Court is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . that she has been paying rentals to the owner of the lot at the rate of P14.90 a month, and knows Ramon Cabanero since the childhood; . . . that she could not remember her last rental payment and has not been paying the same since the filing of this case because plaintiff refused to accept it; so she deposited her rental in a bank; . . ." 17

Petitioner’s failure to intervene in Civil Case No. 13199 or even produce the so-called deed of sale in his favor at the time he testified therein, coupled with the foregoing testimony of his mother, cast serious doubt on the so-called deed of sale which surfaced for the first time when he filed on 23 January 1987 a motion to intervene and annul the judgment in Civil Case No. C-10086. 18 His claim then cannot disturb the settled rule that a judgment in an ejectment case binds not only the defendant but also those who have claims against the former, this is because no one may assert a right superior to the rights of a defendant in an ejectment suit. In the instant case, the petitioner’s rights are limited to those which may be exercised by a mere sublessee or assignee, and even if he were not impleaded as a co-defendant, he is bound by the judgment against his mother Antonia Lumbang. 19

However, although the decision in the ejectment case binds the petitioner, the execution thereof, or the issuance of a demolition order, falls within the jurisdiction of the City Court, now Metropolitan Trial Court, of Kalookan City which rendered the decision in Civil Case No. 13199. In an ejectment case, the appellate court which affirms a decision brought before it on appeal cannot decree its execution in the guise of an execution of the affirming decision. The only exception to that is when said appellate court grants an execution pending appeal.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

In the case of City of Manila v. Court of Appeals, 20 this Court ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The rule is that if the judgment of the metropolitan trial court is appealed to the regional trial court and the decision of the latter is itself elevated to the Court of Appeals, whose decision thereafter became final, the case should be remanded through the regional trial court to the metropolitan trial court for execution. 21 The only exception is the execution pending appeal, which can be issued by the regional trial court under Sec. 8 of Rule 70 or the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court under Sec. 10 of the same Rule."cralaw virtua1aw library

What Branch 120 of the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan should have done was to make an entry of judgment in Civil Case No. C-10086 after the decision of 29 October 1982 became final; such procedure is outlined in Section 2, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court. Thereafter, the RTC should have remanded the case, together with the records of Civil Case No. 13199 which were forwarded to it as a consequence of the appeal interposed therefrom, 22 to the court of origin - the City Court (now Metropolitan Trial Court) of Kalookan City. The motion for execution should then be filed with the latter court.

Accordingly, respondent Judge should not have acted on the motion for the execution of the 29 October 1982 decision in Civil Case No. C-10086 or granted the motion for the issuance of an order of demolition. Accordingly, that portion of his Order of 27 February 1987 granting the said motion is void.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. However, in the light of the above observations, that portion of the Order of respondent Judge of 27 February 1987 in Civil Case No. C-10086 granting the motion for an order of demolition is set aside without prejudice to its refiling in the Metropolitan Trial Court, unless it is already barred by Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Annex "F" of Petition; Rollo, 17-21.

2. Rollo, 19-20.

3. Id., 44.

4. Annex "I" of Comment; Id., 51-53.

5. Annex "G" of Petition; Id., 22-27.

6. Annex "D" of Petition; Rollo, 15.

7. Rollo, 45.

8. Annex "E" of Petition; Id., 16.

9. Annex "A", Id.; Id., 8-10. Per Judge Adoracion G. Angeles.

10. Citing, among others, National Power Corp. v. De Veyra, 3 SCRA 646 [1961]; Hacbang v. Leyte Autobus Co., Inc., 8 SCRA 103 [1963]; Regalado v. Provincial Commander, 3 SCRA 503 [1961].

11. Rollo, 36.

12. Id., 42-50.

13. Id., 61.

14. People v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 539 [1991], citing inter alia, Abogaa v. Go Sam, 87 Phil. 761 [1950]; Equio v. CFI of Negros Oriental, 92 Phil. 1083 [1953]; Fernando v. Vasquez, 31 SCRA 288 [1970]; Vda. de Caldito v. Segundo, 117 SCRA 573 [1982]; Landicho v. Tensuan, 151 SCRA 410 [1987].

15. United States v. Judge of CFI of Pampanga, 49 Phil. 495 [1926].

16. 197 SCRA 71 [1991].

17. Annex "F" of Petition, 39; Rollo, 19.

18. Annex "G", Id.; Id., 22-27.

19. See Sipin v. CFI of Manila, 74 Phil. 649 [1944]; Philippine Consolidated Freight Lines, Inc. v. Ajon, 103 Phil. 318 [1958]; and Guevara Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 478 [1988].

20. 204 SCRA 362, 369 [1991].

21. Citing REGALADO, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, 276.

22. Section 5, Rule 40, Rules of Court; Section 21(b) and (c), Interim Rules Relative to the Implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.




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.