Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > September 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 85086 September 24, 1991

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




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 85086. September 24, 1991.]

ARSENIO P. BUENAVENTURA ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GENERAL MESS FOOD SERVICE WORKERS UNION, Respondents.

Inigo S. Fojas for Petitioner.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; RULE AND EXCEPTION. — Generally, the rule is that findings of fact of the National Labor Relations Commission are entitled to great respect. But the judgment below can be reversed when it has overlooked certain significant facts which are sufficient to alter the questioned decision.

2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; RP-US BASES LABOR AGREEMENT; ABSORPTION BY THE INCOMING CONTRACTOR OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE OUTGOING CONTRACTOR; RULE. — The RP-US Bases Labor Agreement does not speak of automatic absorption by the incoming contractor of the employees of the outgoing contractor but rather emphasizes priority consideration for those who wish to be reemployed by the incoming contractor. And such right of the former employees will only operate upon formally signifying their intent to continue with their employment. Without such manifestation, the incoming contractor cannot be expected to hire all the employees of the outgoing contractor.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, which seeks to review and annul for lack of jurisdiction the decision of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) promulgated on 11 May 1988 getting aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The sole issue to be decided in this case is whether or not herein petitioner (Arsenio P. Buenaventura Enterprises) is legally bound to employ the bona fide members of the respondent union (Genera Mess Food Service Workers Union) who were not hired by petitioner, granting that they pass the same standards applied by the petitioner in hiring its employees.

Petitioner is a sole proprietorship engaged in the business of supplying manpower services. It assumed the mess services at the United States Naval Facility, Subic Naval Base, Olongapo City on 1 April 1987 under a new contract with the U.S. Navy. The members of the respondent union were hired by Rizal Maintenance and Service Corporation (RMSC) whose contract of service with the U.S. Navy expired on 31 March 1987. Out of the two hundred twenty (220) employees of RMSC, petitioner re-hired one hundred forty-eighth (148), and employed forty-five (45) new ones.

As a result of the non-hiring of a number of respondent union’s officers and members, the respondent union, on 31 March 1987, filed a Notice of Strike with the Zambales Provincial Labor Office at Olongapo City and actually struck on the day petitioner assumed the mess services on 1 April 1987. The respondent union charged petitioner "with Unfair Labor Practice based on dismissals, without just cause, of union officers and members which in effect, constitute Union Busting." 1

No settlement was reached at the conciliation level, hence, the case was referred to the Regional Arbitration Branch No. III, San Fernando, Pampanga, for compulsory arbitration on 21 May 1987 and was docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-III-5-3210-87.

Respondent union alleges that its officers and members are protected by the RP-US Bases Labor Agreement of 27 May 1968. In other words, notwithstanding the expiration of the mess services of the outgoing contractor (RMSC), the petitioner, as incoming contractor, is obliged to hire the bona fide employees of the outgoing contractor, citing for support the case of Guerrero’s Transport Services, Inc. v. Blaylock Transportation Services Employees Association-Kilusan (BTEA-KILUSAN), Et. Al. 2

On 29 December 1987, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring petitioner not guilty of unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and/or refusal to employ respondent union’s officers and members. 3

The Labor Arbiter held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We agree with the respondent that the contract of mess attendant service did not oblige the respondent to absorb all the employees of RMSC. We further agree that the RP-US Bases Labor Agreement and the Supreme Court ruling in the Guerrero case did not provide for a security of tenure for the contract employees of contractors and concessionaires. They simply require incoming contractors to give priority consideration to employees of outgoing contractors." 4

x       x       x


"Because of their failure to file application for employment, they barred themselves from being rehired, as there can be no processing to start with. Only those who applied could be processed by the employer, for final screening and approval by U.S. Navy authorities." 5

Respondent union appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision to the NLRC and on 11 May 1988, respondent Commission rendered the now questioned decision setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and directing petitioner to employ the bona fide members of respondent union who were not absorbed after having passed the same standards applied by petitioner in the hiring of its employees. 6

Said the respondent NLRC:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"Suffice it to state that appellee, in recognition of the right of RMSC’s workers to be absorbed, took in many of said workers with the exception of some whom it perceived to be a threat. It would not be amiss to state here that those who were rehired was (sic) admitted by appellant itself were ‘union officers and the more staunch members of the union.’ Perhaps, what could provoke appellee to close its doors towards those employees was the fact that they had struck on the very day it assumed the new contract of mess services on 1 April 1987. But for the reason that the un-absorbed employees were militant in their union activities and/or did not belong to a favored union, we see no reason why they should not be accorded the same privilege as those who were rehired." 7

Thus, petitioner filed this petition and on 12 October 1988, this Court issued a restraining order enjoining the respondents from enforcing the questioned NLRC decision.

The provisions concerning labor relations and terms and conditions of employment of Filipino citizens in the United States Military Bases in the Philippines are embodied in the RP-US Bases Labor Agreement signed in Manila on 27 May 1968. The provision that is relevant to the issue at hand is Article I, Paragraph 6 on Security of Employment which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"6. Security of Employment. Consistent with their military requirements, the United States Armed Forces shall endeavor to provide security of employment and, in the event certain activities or services are contracted out, the United States Armed Forces shall require the contractor or concessionaire to give priority consideration to affected employees for employment. The United States Armed Forces shall at the same time give to such employees priority consideration for re employment by the base. If re employed by the base, such employment shall be without loss of seniority." (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner contends that, while it is admitted that security of tenure is guaranteed under the RP-US Bases Labor Agreement, the same only applies to federal and civilian employees who have been directly hired by the U. S. Government to work in U.S. facilities in the Philippines. Petitioner argues that such guarantee does not extend to those employed under contracts or concessions. Those hired by labor contractors or concessionaires are only to be afforded "priority consideration," as ruled in the GUERRERO case.

Therefore, in compliance with the aforementioned labor agreement, petitioner maintains that, as early as March 1987, it (petitioner) required the former employees of RMSC to file their respective applications for employment with the petitioner. Out of the two hundred twenty (220) workers of RMSC, it hired one hundred forty-eight (148), and those not hired were those who did not apply for work.

We find merit in the petition.

In Guerrero’s Transport Services, Inc. v. Blaylock Transportation Services Employees Association-Kilusan (BTEA-KILUSAN), Et. Al. 8 it was held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Pursuant to Section 6 of Article I of the Philippine-U.S. Labor Agreement of May 27, 1968, the United States Armed Forces undertook, consistent with military requirements, ‘to provide security for employment, and, in the event certain services are contracted out, the United States Armed Forces shall require the contractor or concessionaire to give priority consideration to affected employees for employment.’ (Emphasis supplied.)

"A treaty has two (2) aspects — as an international agreement between states, and as municipal law for the people of each state to observe. As part of the municipal law, the aforesaid provision of the treaty enters into and forms part of the contract between petitioner and the U.S. Naval Base authorities. In view of said stipulation, the new contractor is, therefore, bound to give ‘priority’ to the new employment of the qualified employees of the previous contractor. It is obviously in recognition of such obligation that petitioner entered into the afore-mentioned Compromise Agreement."cralaw virtua1aw library

The factual circumstances in the cited GUERRERO case are quite similar to those of the case at bar. In the said case, the United States Naval Base authorities at Subic, Zambales, conducted a public bidding for a five-year contract for the right to operate and/or manage the transportation services inside the naval base. This bidding was won by Santiago Guerrero, owner-operator of Guerrero’s Transport Services, Inc. over Concepcion F. Blaylock, the then incumbent concessionaire doing business under the name of "Blaylock Transport Services," whose 395 employees were members of the union BTEA-KILUSAN. When Guerrero’s Transport Services, Inc. refused to employ the members of the union, the latter filed a complaint with the NLRC against the former to compel it to employ the union members pursuant to Article I, Section 6 of the subject Agreement.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

This Court in the said case rendered a decision ordering Guerrero’s Transport Services, Inc. to employ members of the union who satisfied the following criteria: (a) bona fide employment with the Blaylock Transport Services at the time its concession expired; and (b) they pass the final screening and approval by the appropriate authorities of the U. S. Naval Base.

The respondent Commission in the present case stated in its decision that those who were not rehired were "union officers and the more staunch members of the union." And the fact that they were militant in their union activities and/or did not belong to a favored union were not enough grounds, according to the NLRC, for them not to be accorded the same privilege as those who were rehired. 9

Generally, the rule is that findings of fact of the respondent Commission are entitled to great respect. But the judgment below can be reversed when public respondents have overlooked certain significant facts which are sufficient to alter the questioned decision. That situation confronts us now. 10

The respondent Commission has totally disregarded the finding of the Labor Arbiter that the respondent union’s officers and members who were not re-hired by petitioner, had failed to file applications for employment and thus barred themselves from being rehired as there could be no processing to start with.

A perusal of the GUERRERO case would show that the orders issued by then Secretary of Labor Blas F. Ople and Labor Arbiter De los Reyes spoke of applicants to be processed for absorption. It would seem that application is a pre-requisite before one can be screened and finally approved. Thus, in the said case, the Secretary of Labor had to resolve first the issue of the credibility of the alleged applications of the members of the union.

The RP-US Bases Labor Agreement does not speak of automatic absorption by the incoming contractor of the employees of the outgoing contractor but rather emphasizes priority consideration for those who wish to be re employed by the incoming contractor. And such right of the former employees will only operate upon formally signifying their intent to continue with their employment. Without such manifestation, the incoming contractor cannot be expected to hire all the employees of the outgoing contractor.chanrobles law library

In its decision, respondent Commission merely quoted the decision of the Labor Arbiter regarding the allegation that a number of the respondent union’s members were absorbed and those who were not absorbed were those who allegedly did not re-apply with the petitioner. The respondent Commission did not explicitly affirm the conclusion of the Labor Arbiter but neither did it reverse the decision of the Labor Arbiter regarding this matter.

In the Comment of the Solicitor-General, he alleges that the NLRC made a finding that the employees of the previous contractor who were not hired had filed their applications with petitioner but they were not employed, as testified to by Mr. Mirabueno and Mr. Andaya, members of the respondent union. But this finding is not reflected in the decision of the respondent Commission. If such allegation was clearly and substantially supported by evidence, why did the respondent Commission fail to use such evidence to refute and disprove the conclusion reached by the Labor Arbiter?

We therefore rule that petitioner is not legally bound to employ the bona fide members of the respondent union who failed to apply for said employment in the first place.

"That there should be concern, sympathy, and solicitude for the rights and welfare of the working class, is meet and proper. That in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writings should be resolved in the former’s favor is not an unreasonable or unfair rule. But that disregard of the employer’s own rights and interests can be justified by that concern and solicitude is unjust and unacceptable." 11

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent Commission in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-5-3210-87 dated 11 May 1988 is SET ASIDE and the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 29 December 1987 is REINSTATED. Without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 23-24.

2. G.R. No. L-41518, June 30, 1976, 71 SCRA 621.

3. Rollo, p. 34.

4. Rollo, pp. 29-30.

5. Rollo, p. 32.

6. Rollo, p. 21.

7. Rollo, p. 19.

8. Supra.

9. Rollo. p. 7.

10. Haverton Shipping Ltd., Et. Al. v. NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 65442, April 15, 1985, 135 SCRA 685.

11. Stanford Microsystems, Inc. v. NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 74187, January 28, 1988, 157 SCRA 410.




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.