Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > March 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 97505 March 1, 1993 - RAMON U. VILLAREAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 97505. March 1, 1993.]

RAMON U. VILLAREAL, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK and UNITED BICOL SAVINGS BANK, Respondents.

Ramon U. Villareal for Petitioner.

Encanto, Mabugat & Associates for United Coconut Planters Bank.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT; ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW MAY BE RAISED. — Petitioner contends that there was no substantial compliance by the UBSB with the legal formalities prescribed by the Corporation Code for the increase or decrease in the capital stock of the corporation under Section 38. This claim entails a factual issue or purely a question of fact. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court only questions of law may be raised. 4 This explains why the original petition filed before the Supreme Court containing the same assignment of errors was referred to the Court of Appeals for action instead of being dismissed for being improper. Elevating the same issues to the Supreme Court after an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals does not cure the petition of the same procedural defect: hence; it is subject to dismissal.

2. ID.; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC), GENERALLY ACCORDED RESPECT AND FINALITY. — The administrative findings of facts of the SEC are well supported by evidence on record and in reviewing the decision of said quasi-judicial body. We find no cause to re-examine the sufficiency of the evidence submitted before said agency, concurred in and considered by all, in supporting its questioned decision. The findings of fact of the SEC must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. Well settled is the rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the SEC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. Neither should the factual findings of the respondent Court of Appeals be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence.

3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; DUE PROCESS; AFFORDED IN CASE AT BAR. — The petitioner argues that his petition (letter complaint) was dismissed without any hearing, and therefore was denied due process. This argument betrays a lack of understanding of the due process clause. A formal trial or hearing is not always the earmark of due process, that in the absence thereof, a person can show the he was denied or deprived of due process. The requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and air their side. The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling taken. In the case at bar, petitioner was given the chance to ventilate his cause through his letter complaint filed before the SEC with all its supporting documents, and in his appeal to the Court of Appeals thru a petition and a motion for reconsideration of the decision dismissing his petition. A formal hearing is not necessary since the issues raised in his letter complaint could be resolved by a mere verification of the BSLA records with the SEC. In the certiorari proceedings at the Court of Appeals, the appellate Court merely reviews the evidence submitted before the SEC or the records of the proceedings below.


D E C I S I O N


CAMPOS, JR., J.:


In this Petition for Review by Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner seeks to nullify and set aside the following actions of the Court of Appeals:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) The Decision, ** dated October 31, 1990, which affirmed the dismissal by the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) of the petitioner’s letter-complaint dated December 23, 1988 on alleged irregularities in connection with the approval of the application for the decreases/increases in the capital stock of the respondent United Bicol Savings Bank (formerly Bicol Savings and Loans Association, Inc.) [UBSB].

(b) The Resolution dated February 11, 1991 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the above decision.cralawnad

The Court of Appeals took cognizance of the petitioner’s appeal from the decision of the SEC by referral to it by this Court. The appellate court held that there was substantial compliance with Section 38 of the Corporation Code 1 and of Section 9 of the General Banking Act, thus affirming the decision of the SEC which led to the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit.

On March 19, 1991, petitioner filed the instant petition before this Court setting forth the following issues (and not assignment of errors) 2 :chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

"I


Which of the two conflicting certificates are valid? 1) The Central Bank Certificate of Authority (Annex C) dated March 29, 1983 increasing the capital stock of BSLA, Inc. from P2.5 M to P14.285 M. or

2) The SEC Certificate of Decrease of Capital Stock of BSLA, Inc. from P2.5 M to P1 M (Annex D) dated September 28, 1984 and the SEC Certificate of Increase from P1 M to P12.285 M (Annex E) also dated September 28, 1984.

II


Was there a violation of the due process of law, when the letter-complaint was summarily dismissed by the Commission en banc based upon the findings of a partial corporate and legal department which did not conduct any hearings?"

From a careful scrutiny of the records of this case, the antecedent facts are, as correctly stated by public respondent, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. In 1981, petitioner was a preferred stockholder’ and a member of the Board of Directors of Bicol Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (BSLA).

2. On September 18, 1981, a special stockholders’ meeting was held at the main office of the BSLA in Naga City for the purpose of approving, among others, the decrease and increase of the capital stock of BSLA and the change of the corporate name to United Bicol Savings Bank Inc. (UBSB).

3. At said meeting, stockholders owning more than 2/3 of the outstanding capital stock as well as the majority of the directors approved, among others:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) The decrease of the authorized capital of BSLA from P2,500,000 to P1,000,000.

b) The increase of the authorized capital stock of BSLA from P1,000,000 to P14,285,000.

c) The change of corporate name from Bicol Savings and Loans Association, Inc. to United Bicol Savings Bank.

d) The subscription of United Coconut Planters Bank to the capital stock of BSLA.

4. On March 29, 1983, the Central Bank issued a Certificate of Authority which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . that the amendments of Articles First and Seventh of the

Articles of Incorporation

of the

Bicol Savings and Loans Association, Inc.,

Naga City

to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Article First — changing the corporate name to `United Bicol Savings Bank’

Article Seventh — increasing the capital stock from P2,500,000 to P14,285,000; reducing the par value of the common shares of stock from P30 to P10 per share; and converting all the preferred shares into common which are evidenced by Certificate of Increase of Capital Stock, Director’s Certificate, Treasurer’s Sworn Statement and amended Articles of Incorporation, are in accordance with law."cralaw virtua1aw library

This certificate is hereby issued to enable the association to register the said amendments with the Securities and Exchange Commission in accordance with Section 9 of Republic Act No. 337, as amended."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


5. On September 28, 1984, respondent SEC issued a "Certificate Of Filing of Certificate of Decrease Of Capital Stock from P2,500,000 to P1,000,000" and another "Certificate Of Filing Of Certificate Of Increase Of Capital Stock" of BSLA from P1,000,000 to P14,285,000 (Annexes "C" and "D", Petition).cralawnad

6. Under date of December 23, 1988, petitioner filed a letter-complaint with respondent SEC, alleging anomalous and fraudulent manipulations committed on the approved applications for decrease and increase of capital stock of BSLA.

7. On July 5, 1989, respondent SEC, on the basis of the findings of its Corporate and Legal Department after a verification of all documents of BSLA on file, issued an Order dismissing petitioner’s letter-complaint for lack of merit (Annex "H", Petition).

8. Petitioner appealed the Order of respondent SEC by way of a petition for review on certiorari (Annex "B", Petition) but this Honorable Court referred the petition to respondent Court of Appeals and was docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 18925." 3

On October 31, 1990, the respondent Court rendered a decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit. On February 11, 1991, it denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner; hence, this Petition for Review filed on March 15, 1991, embodying substantially the same matters contained in his previous petition to this Court.

A cursory reading of the petition readily discloses that the issues contained therein raise substantially factual issues and not questions of law. Petitioner contends that there was no substantial compliance by the UBSB with the legal formalities prescribed by the Corporation Code for the increase or decrease in the capital stock of the corporation under Section 38 quoted hereunder:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No corporation shall increase or decrease its capital stock or incur, create or increase any bonded indebtedness unless approved by a majority vote of the board of directors and, at a stockholders’ meeting duly called for the purpose, two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding capital stock shall favor the increase or diminution of the capital stock or of the incurring, creating, or increasing of any bonded indebtedness. Written notice of the proposed increase or diminution of the capital stock, or of the incurring, creating or increasing of any bonded indebtedness and of the time and place of the stockholders’ meeting at which the proposed increase or diminution of the capital stock or the incurring or increasing of any bonded indebtedness is to be considered, must be addressed to each stockholder at his place of residence as shown on the books of the corporation and deposited to the addressee in the post office with postage prepaid, or served personally.

x       x       x"

Petitioner contends that the two certificates of decrease and increase in capital stock of the UBSB were not in compliance with the above provision, thus were not valid. This claim entails a factual issue or purely a question of fact. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court only questions of law may be raised. 4 This explains why the original petition filed before the Supreme Court containing the same assignment of errors was referred to the Court of Appeals for action instead of being dismissed for being improper. Elevating the same issues to the Supreme Court after an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals does not cure the petition of the same procedural defect: hence; it is subject to dismissal.

In any event, We decide to resolve the above issues in order to put this case at rest and decide the questions with finality as between the parties concerned.chanrobles law library

We find that the questioned decision of the respondent Court is supported by substantial evidence. From the following documentary exhibits submitted by the private respondents before the Court of Appeals, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Notice of Special Stockholders’ Meeting;

(b) Minutes of the Special Stockholders’ Meeting of the BSLA, Inc.;

(c) Directors’ Certificate of Decrease of Authorized Capital Stock;

(d) Directors’ Certificate of Increase of Authorized Capital Stock; and

(e) Treasurer’s Certificate

the following facts are established:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. A stockholders’ meeting was held at the main office of the corporation on September 18, 1981 at 3 o’clock in the afternoon duly called for the purpose of decreasing and increasing the capital stock of the corporation known as Bicol Savings and Loan Association, Inc.

2. Written notices of the stockholders’ meeting stating the time and place thereof as well as the purpose, were sent to each stockholder on record, properly addressed at his place of residence as shown in the books of the corporation and deposited in the post office with postage prepaid, or served personally.

3. The decrease and increase in capital stock were approved by the vote of a majority of the Board of Directors (7 out of 11 directors) and by the vote of 2/3 of the outstanding capital stock.

The stockholders’ meeting for the action on the proposed increase and decrease in the capital stock took place on September 18, 1981 and not on September 18, 1984. The latter date appearing on the SEC Certificate of Filing of Certificate of Decrease of Capital Stock 5 was a typographical mistake and may be subject to correction.

The capital stock was decreased from P2,500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 to eliminate deficit (or losses from operations) and later increased to P14,285,000.00 by infusion of additional capital. The two applications for decrease and increase in capital stock were approved by the SEC on the same date of September 24, 1984. The minutes of the meeting also stated that the stockholders approved the following resolution:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"RESOLVED furthermore that the Par Value of each share of capital stock of the Bank be reduced from P100.00 per share to P50.00 per share of preferred shares; and from P30.00 per share to P10.00 per share of common shares and to convert all Preferred Shares to Common Shares on the basis/ratio of five Common Shares to be issued for each share of Preferred Stock; and for this purpose to amend the Articles of Incorporation accordingly" 6

This resolution refers to and includes the decrease in capital stock. By simple arithmetical computation, the capital stock was reduced to P1,000,000.00. Decreasing the par value of each share without changing the number of issued shares is one method of reducing the capital stock of the corporation. As reduced, the P1,000,000.00 capital stock served as the take-off base in the subsequent increase in the capital stock. The alleged erasure of the amount of P1,000,000.00 which served as a basis for the increase in capital stock was intentionally done to reflect the correct take-off point in the increase in capital stock, and not for any irregular or questionable purpose.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The administrative findings of facts of the SEC are well supported by evidence on record and in reviewing the decision of said quasi-judicial body. We find no cause to re-examine the sufficiency of the evidence submitted before said agency, concurred in and considered by all, in supporting its questioned decision. The findings of fact of the SEC must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. Well settled is the rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the SEC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. 7 Neither should the factual findings of the respondent Court of Appeals be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence.

The petitioner argues that his petition (letter complaint) was dismissed without any hearing, and therefore was denied due process. This argument betrays a lack of understanding of the due process clause. A formal trial or hearing is not always the earmark of due process, that in the absence thereof, a person can show the he was denied or deprived of due process. The requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and air their side. The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side 8 or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling taken.

In the case at bar, petitioner was given the chance to ventilate his cause through his letter complaint filed before the SEC with all its supporting documents, and in his appeal to the Court of Appeals thru a petition and a motion for reconsideration of the decision dismissing his petition. A formal hearing is not necessary since the issues raised in his letter complaint could be resolved by a mere verification of the BSLA records with the SEC. In the certiorari proceedings at the Court of Appeals, the appellate Court merely reviews the evidence submitted before the SEC or the records of the proceedings below.cralawnad

In the light of the foregoing analysis and for reasons indicated, We find the Petition without merit and consequently DENY the same without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



** CA-G.R. SP No. 18925, penned by Associate Justice Asaali S. Isnani and concurred in by Associate Justices Luis A. Javellana and Jaime M. Lantin.

1. Batas Pambansa Blg. 68.

2. Rollo, pp. 4-5.

3. Rollo, pp. 63-66.

4. REVISED RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 2.

5. Petition, Annex "D" ; Rollo, p. 21.

6. Petition, Annex "H" ; Rollo, p. 33.

7. Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 418 (1990) citing Baby Bus I Inc. v. Minister of Labor, 158 SCRA 22 (1988); Asian Construction and Development Corp. v. NLRC, 187 SCRA 784, 787 (1990).

8. Jaculina v. National Police Commission, 200 SCRA 289 (1991) citing Var. Orient Shipping Co., Inc. v. Achacoso, 161 SCRA 732, 736 (1988).




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






March-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-88-216 March 1, 1993 - BEN MEDINA v. LETICIA MARIANO DE GUIA

  • G.R. No. 79253 March 1, 1993 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. v. LUIS R. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94471 March 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94528 March 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PETER CADEVIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94542 March 1, 1993 - FRANCISCO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95322 March 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO DOMASIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95770 March 1, 1993 - ROEL EBRALINAG, ET AL. v. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU

  • G.R. No. 97505 March 1, 1993 - RAMON U. VILLAREAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98182 March 1, 1993 - PASTOR FERRER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98457 March 1, 1993 - AMADOR B. SURBAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98933 March 1, 1993 - EGYPT AIR LOCAL EMPLOYEES ASSO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105409 March 1, 1993 - MASTER TOURS and TRAVEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106971 March 1, 1993 - TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., ET AL. v. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73246 March 2, 1993 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96969 March 2, 1993 - ROMEO P. FLORES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100658 March 2, 1993 - WYETH-SUACO LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101333 March 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS SAMSON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-92-698 March 3, 1993 - CHITO VALENTON, ET AL. v. ALFONSO MELGAR

  • G.R. No. 83851 March 3, 1993 - VISAYAN SAWMILL COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86941 March 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO BASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90027 March 3, 1993 - CA AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVT. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 91711-15 March 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DINO ALFORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94125 March 3, 1993 - JESUS MIGUEL YULO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96053 March 3, 1993 - JOSEFINA TAYAG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103396 March 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO DEOCARIZA

  • G.R. No. 95849 March 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIO MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. 57312 March 5, 1993 - LEONOR DELOS ANGELES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60501 March 5, 1993 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78115 March 5, 1993 - DOMINGA REGIDOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 81852-53 March 5, 1993 - ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84847 March 5, 1993 - HENRY KOA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85534 March 5, 1993 - GENERAL BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90349 March 5, 1993 - EDWIN GESULGON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95918 March 5, 1993 - LUCIO M. CAYABA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97068 March 5, 1993 - FIL-PRIDE SHIPPING CO., INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97957 March 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO LASE

  • G.R. No. 98147 March 5, 1993 - NIMFA G. RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101766 March 5, 1993 - DANIEL S.L. BORBON II, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO B. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101897 March 5, 1993 - LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106556 March 5, 1993 - AURORA P. CRISPINO v. FORTUNATO V. PANGANIBAN

  • G.R. No. 106847 March 5, 1993 - PATRICIO P. DIAZ v. SANTOS B. ADIONG, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-655 March 8, 1993 - LICERIO P. NIQUE v. FELIPE G. ZAPATOS

  • G.R. No. 74678 March 8, 1993 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94960 March 8, 1993 - IMPERIAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. VLADIMIR P.L. SAMPANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96123-24 March 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MANALO

  • G.R. No. 96949 March 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NARITO

  • G.R. Nos. 101202, 102554 March 8, 1993 - RAMON A. DIAZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101256 March 8, 1993 - PEPITO LAUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104523 & 104526 March 8, 1993 - ARMS TAXI, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104583 March 8, 1993 - DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85273 March 9, 1993 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INS. SYSTEM v. GENARO C. GINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85419 March 9, 1993 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RIZAL v. SIMA WEI , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89373 March 9, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YOLANDA GESMUNDO

  • G.R. No. 95847-48 March 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL GERENTE

  • G.R. No. 100594 March 10, 1993 - BINALBAGAN TECH. INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102704 March 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORDENCIO CHATTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106982 March 11, 1993 - SYNDICATED MEDIA ACCESS CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-91-666 March 12, 1993 - ANTONIO DONATA F. SABADO, ET AL. v. NOVATO T. CAJIGAL

  • G.R. No. 102126 March 12, 1993 - ANGELICA LEDESMA v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF CIPRIANO PEDROSA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-329 March 17, 1993 - RODOLFO T. ALLARDE v. PEDRO N. LAGGUI

  • G.R. No. 75295 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESRAEL AMONDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88802 March 17, 1993 - FROILAN C. GERVASIO, ET AL. v. ROLANDO V. CUAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94053 March 17, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO NOLASCO

  • G.R. No. 97393 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO S. BERNARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101004 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL PONFERADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101689 March 17, 1993 - CARLITO U. ALVIZO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 102045 March 17, 1993 - LUZ CARPIO VDA. DE QUIJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102300 March 17, 1993 - CITIBANK. N.A. v. HON. SEGUNDINO CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102722 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMIN BESANA

  • G.R. No. 102826 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO LABAO

  • G.R. No. 68555 March 19, 1993 - PRIME WHITE CEMENT CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82829 March 19, 1993 - JAM TRANSPORTATION, CO. INC. v. LUIS HERMOSA FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84607 March 19, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL

  • G.R. No. 93476 March 19, 1993 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95450 March 19, 1993 - HOME INSURANCE AND GUARANTY CORPORATION v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95771 March 19, 1993 - LAWRENCE BOWE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96721 March 19, 1993 - OCCIDENTAL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97070 March 19, 1993 - ARTURO GRAVINA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97749 March 19, 1993 - SALVADOR BUAZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99041 March 19, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR N. TAPIC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102132 March 19, 1993 - DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT STEVEDORING SERVICES v. RUBEN V. ABARQUEZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-296 March 22, 1993 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LETICIA VILLAR-NOOL

  • A.M. No. P-90-512 March 22, 1993 - CRISPIN CARREON, ET AL. v. EDUARDO MENDIOLA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-622 March 22, 1993 - MANUEL T. URADA v. LUZVIMINDA M. MAPALAD

  • A.M. No. P-92-697 March 22, 1993 - MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO, JR. v. ALBERTO D. ALMEIDA

  • G.R. No. 68464 March 22, 1993 - FRANCISCO D. YAP, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82457 March 22, 1993 - INOCENTE LEONARDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88632 March 22, 1993 - TEODULO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91133 March 22, 1993 - ROMINA M. SUAREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91228 March 22, 1993 - PUROMINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92049 March 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN U. MORENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100332 March 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA DAGDAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102351 March 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO S. LIBUNGAN

  • G.R. No. 102955 March 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIAN G. ENRIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 95455 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY ABEJERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97612 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO AMANIA

  • G.R. No. 100913 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN CASAO

  • G.R. No. 101451 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX V. REGALADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101741 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADLY HUBILO

  • G.R. No. 70451 March 24, 1993 - HENRY H. GAW v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85951 March 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVARO SUITOS

  • G.R. No. 90391 March 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIH S. JUMA

  • G.R. No. 95029 March 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADOLFO NARVAS PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. 101761 March 24, 1993 - NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105851 March 24, 1993 - MYRENE PADILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101742 March 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ASTERIO A. ESCOSIO

  • G.R. No. 101566 March 26, 1993 - FLORENCIO A. RUIZ, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-88-263 March 30, 1993 - MARIANO R. NALUPTA, JR. v. HONESTO G. TAPEC

  • A.C. No. 3923 March 30, 1993 - CONCORDIA B. GARCIA v. CRISANTO L. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. L-48359 March 30, 1993 - MANOLO P. CERNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72200 March 30, 1993 - SANPIRO FINANCE CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76118 March 30, 1993 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87214 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO SADIANGABAY

  • G.R. No. 91734 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BORMEO

  • G.R. Nos. 92793-94 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO A. BAGANG

  • G.R. No. 96090 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LAGO

  • G.R. No. 96770 March 30, 1993 - HERMENEGILDO AGDEPPA, ET AL. v. EMILIANO IBE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100993 March 30, 1993 - CONCEPCION MUÑOZ DIVINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101268 March 30, 1993 - MEHITABEL FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102358 March 30, 1993 - VICENTE MANALO v. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102918 March 30, 1993 - JOSE V. NESSIA v. JESUS M. FERMIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104044 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER NAVAJA

  • G.R. No. 104189 March 30, 1993 - AMELIA LAROBIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104315 March 30, 1993 - SAMUEL MARTINEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104782 March 30, 1991

    NELY T. RASPADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58010 March 31, 1993 - EMILIA O’LACO, ET AL. v. VALENTIN CO CHO CHIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91014 March 31, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER G. MAPA

  • G.R. No. 97609 March 31, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE R. MIÑANO

  • G.R. No. 97747 March 31, 1993 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99886 March 31, 1993 - JOHN H. OSMEÑA v. OSCAR ORBOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103038 March 31, 1993 - JULIA ANG ENG MARIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104266 March 31, 1993 - PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107987 March 31, 1993 - JOSE M. BULAONG v. COMELEC, ET AL.