Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > December 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 130339 December 22, 1998 - OMANFIL INT’L. MANPOWER DEV. CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 130339. December 22, 1998.]

OMANFIL INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) and LORA FELIPE, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


PUNO, J.:


This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul two (2) resolutions 1 of public respondent NLRC (Third Division) awarding US$27,902.02 to the private respondent for the death of her husband and 10% of said amount as attorney’s fees.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The facts and the issues are accurately stated in the February 11, 1997 Resolution of the public respondent which we quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The bare facts culled from the record show that Eduardo O. Felipe was married to the complainant and the union produced a child, Michelle F. Felipe.

"Eduardo O. Felipe was hired by Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd., through its local agent Omanfil International Manpower Development Corporation, as Offshore Rigger sometime on February 7, 1993.

"On or about June 7, 1993, the ferry boat where Eduardo Felipe was on board met an accident, claiming the life of one worker but the body of Eduardo Felipe was never found, despite diligent efforts to locate the same.

"Complainant received from the Melaka Labor Office a certification which reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Sir,

‘SUB: DECEASED — EDUARDO O. FELIPE

on 7.6.93

‘With reference the money should be paid accordingly to Section 8 of Labour Malaysia, 1952 as follows: —

Income in a month RM1,655.52 (US620.04)

Interest RM —

Medical RM —

Food RM — (or RM105/90/70

which ever more)

Total claim RM1,655 x 45 month = RM74,498.40 (or

RM14,400

which ever less)

= US27,902.02

‘If you agreed [sic] to the above calculation please pay the money RM14,400 (US5,393.29) to PBN/PPB to the next of kin of the deceased.

‘Enclosed please find the following form [sic] to fill.

a) 1 copy Form ‘A’ — Buruh 32

b) 3 copy [sic] Agreed Memorandum. Please empty for the signature of the deceased next of kin.

‘Please return all the form [sic] together with the claim and stamp "Hasil" RM2.70 (US1.011) within 30 days from the date of this letter.

‘Thank you.

‘Yours faithfully,’

"Likewise, the Melaka Labor Office issued a receipt showing that Hyundai Engineering deposited RM14,400.00 with the Melaka Labor Office.

"The fact of death of Eduardo O. Felipe was not raised as an issue in this Office inasmuch as the same was admitted in respondents’ pleadings.

"Thus, the issue raised before the Labor Arbiter is the amount of death benefits due the complainant and whether the deposit made by Hyundai with the Melaka Labor Office constitutes valid payment.

"Complainant alleges that the amount should be US$27,902.02 and that the deposit made by Hyundai Engineering to the Melaka Labor Office did not constitute payment.

"On the other hand, respondents contend that the complainant is only entitled to RM14,400.00 or US$5,393.29 and that their deposit of the said amount with the Melaka Labor Office extinguished their obligation."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner to pay private respondent US$27,902.02 as death benefit and 10% thereof as attorney’s fees. 2

The public respondent NLRC (Third Division) affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. 3 It held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"The core of the matter in the case at bar is the interpretation of the certification issued by the Labor Office of Melaka and the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of Malaysia.

"The Certification of the Melaka Labor Office reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Sir,

‘SUB: DECEASED — EDUARDO O. FELIPE

on 7.6.93

‘With reference the money should be paid accordingly to Section 8 of Labour Malaysia, 1952 as follows: —

Income in a month RM1,655.52 (US620.04)

Interest RM —

Medical RM —

Food RM — (or RM105/90/70

which ever more)

Total claim RM1,655 x 45 month = RM74,498.40 (or

RM14,400

which ever less)

= US27,902.02

‘If you agreed [sic] to the above calculation please pay the money RM14,400 (US5,393.29) to PBN/PPB to the next of kin of the deceased.

‘Enclosed please find the following form [sic] to fill.

a) 1 copy Form ‘A’ — Buruh 32

b) 3 copy [sic] Agreed Memorandum. Please empty for the signature of the deceased next of kin.

‘Please return all the form [sic] together with the claim and stamp "Hasil" RM2.70 (US1.011) within 30 days from the date of this letter.

‘Thank you.

‘Yours faithfully,’

"On the other hand, Section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Malaysia, reads as follows:chanrobles.com : virtual law library

‘Where death has resulted from the injury, a lump sum equal to forty five months earnings or fourteen thousand four hundred ringgit, whichever is the less;’

"A perusal of the foregoing certification and provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Malaysia, as correctly pointed out by the complainant, are [sic] susceptible of two different interpretations.

"The Certification is indeed ambiguous inasmuch as it goes to the extent of computing the death benefits based on forty five months of the deceased monthly earnings and at the same time adds the phrase ‘RM14,400.00, whichever less’. The ambiguity becomes more apparent by virtue of the figure US$27,902.02 which appears below the phrase ‘which ever less’. If the intention of the Labor Office of Melaka was to award RM14,400.00 it should have not otherwise put the amount of US$27,902.02.

"In ruling in favor of complainant, we but render obedience to the well-entrenched principle that in case of doubt, a labor case must be decided in favor of the workingman. (Aquino Et. Al. v. NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 8763, February 11, 1992). This is in consonance with the liberal and compassionate spirit which gave birth to labor laws as social justice measures and as manifestation of the State’s avowed policy to give maximum aid and protection to labor (see Sarmiento v. Employees Compensation Commission, 103 SCRA 329).

"On the second and third issues, we also rule in favor of complainant. Although, there was deposited of [sic] RM14,400.00 with the Melaka Labor Office, the same is not valid.

"We do not agree with respondents’ contention that they had no option but to pay directly to the Melaka Labor Office. It is clear from the same certification that respondents were given the option to pay the compensation benefits to ‘PBN/PPB to the next of kin of the deceased.’ Therefore, respondents should have paid directly to herein complainant, she being the next of kin of the deceased. Furthermore, under Philippine laws, payment to the next of kin of the deceased is valid. Finally, as again correctly pointed out by complainant, the amount deposited with the Melaka Labor Office is less than the amount to which complainant is entitled, so much so that the deposit of the same is not the complete payment needed to extinguish respondents’ obligation."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner charges the public respondent with grave abuse of discretion and submits the following issues for resolution:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. Whether or not the public respondent seriously erred and gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in affirming the decision of the Honorable Labor Arbiter finding that the benefits due the private respondent was US$27,902.02.

Second. Whether or not the public respondent seriously erred and gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in holding that the Certification/Computation marked as Annex "F" above and Section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Malaysia were susceptible to two different interpretations and thereafter applied the rule that in case of doubt, settle the doubt in favor of labor.

Third. Whether or not the public respondent seriously erred and gravely abused its discretion in disregarding the express language of Annexes "I", "I-1", "I-2", "I-3", and "I-4" .

Fourth. Whether or not the public respondent seriously erred and gravely abused its discretion when it affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter finding that the deposit of RM14,400 was not a valid payment.

We find the petition meritorious.

First. We hold that there is no ambiguity in the aforequoted Computation/Certification from the Malacca Labor Office. The computation is in complete accord with Section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Malaysia which states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"8. Subject to this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely —

a. Where death has resulted from the injury, a lump sum equal to forty-five months’ earnings or fourteen thousand four hundred ringgit, whichever is less."cralaw virtua1aw library

Clearly what is due to the private respondent as death benefit is 14,400 Malaysian Ringgit since that amount is less than US $27,902.02.

Second. To clinch its contention that private respondent is only entitled to the payment of RM14,400, petitioner also submitted the following Certification issued by Sh. Yahya Bin Sh. Mohamed, Director General of Labour Peninsular, Malaysia: 4

"IBU PEJABAT JABATAN BURUH, SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA

(KEMENTERIAN SUMBER MANUSIA),

PARAS 5, BLOK B (UTARA), Telefon: 03-2557200

PUSAT BANDAR DAMANSARA, 03-2559111

50532 KUALA LUMPUR Telefax: 03-2536040

Ruj Tuan:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Ruj Kami: (8)BSM.9/12/46/96

Tarikh: /(Mac 1997

To Whom It May Concern.

Fatal Accident to Eduardo O. Felipe

On 7.6.1993 in Malacca

"We regret to inform you that the abovenamed workman passed away on 7.6.1993 as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. However, we still need the death certificate or any certification concerned.chanrobles law library

"Subject to Section 8(a) Workmen’s Compensation Act 1952 (Act 273) Law of Malaysia. the amount of compensation where death has resulted from the injury or employment accident is subjected to the maximum up to RM14,400.00 (not more than RM14,400.00).

"But it can be less than RM14,400.00 if the monthly salary of the concerned workman is less than RM320.00 per month.

"In the case of Eduardo O. Felipe, his monthly salary is RM1,655.00. So, the amount should be deposited with the Director of Labour Malacca, Malaysia by the employer is RM14,400 (not less neither more than RM14,400.00) as required by Section 8(a) and 10(1) Workmen’s Compensation Act 1952 (Act 273) Law of Malaysia.

"Upon receiving the amount of RM14,400.00, the Commissioner of Labour of Malaysia shall make an inquiry under Section 27 Workmen’s Compensation Act 1952 (Act 273) Law of Malaysia to determine the number of dependents of a deceased workman and the extent to which they were dependent upon him.

"The employer had already deposited the said amount on 22.4.1994.

"Attached are relevant section [sic] of The Workmen’s Compensation Act 1952 (Act 273) Law of Malaysia and assessment for fatal case.

"Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Sgd.

(SH. YAHYA BIN SH. MOHAMED)

for Director General of Labour

Peninsular, Malaysia.

s.k. Pengarah Buruh Negeri, Melaka.

(Emphasis supplied)"

This Certification was duly authenticated by Mr. Bayani V. Mangibin, our Consul General in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 5 It is uncontested by respondents. The Certification clearly establishes that the amount due to private respondent under the laws of Malaysia is RM14,400.00.

Third. Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of Malaysia prescribes the mode of payment of compensation of death benefits, viz: 6

"10. (1) No payment of compensation in respect of a workman whose injury has resulted in death, and no payment of a lump sum as compensation to a woman or to a minor, shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner, and any such payment made directly to any dependent of a deceased workman or to any woman or minor shall be deemed not to be a payment of compensation for the purposes of this Act.

x       x       x


"(3) The receipt of the Commissioner shall be a sufficient discharge for any compensation deposited with him."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner complied with this provision when Hyundai deposited the amount of RM14,400 with the Office of the Director of Labour of Melaka. Private respondent was thereafter duly informed of this deposit. Petitioner cannot now be faulted by the public respondent for complying with the said law of Malaysia. Resultantly, we hold that it has discharged its monetary obligation to the private Respondent.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and the impugned resolutions of the public respondent are annulled and set aside. No costs.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Bellosillo, Mendoza and Martinez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Dated February 11, 1997 and July 28, 1997 respectively in NLRC CA No. 011417-96 (POEA Case No. 94-08-2363).

2. Decision dated June 24, 1996.

3. See footnote number one.

4. Annex I-1, Petition.

5. Annex I, Petition.

6. Annex G, Petition.




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






December-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 126518 : December 02, 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODELIO BUGAYONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 122629 : December 02, 1998] PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILS., INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SIXTO MARELLA, JR., SPS. EDGARDO DE VERA AND SALVACION LOCSIN DE VERA AND ANNA A. LOCSIN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 80849 : December 02, 1998] STA. INES MELALE FOREST PRODUCTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; HON. SAMILO N. BARLONGAY, ACTING DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; HON. SECRETARY OF NATURAL RESOURCES; HON. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT; AGUSAN WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. AND� KALILID WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 81114 : DECEMBER 2, 1998] STA. INES MELALE FOREST PRODUCTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. VICENTE A. HIDALGO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE BUTUAN CITY, BRANCH V, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE BUTUAN CITY AND KALILID WOOD INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 129079 : December 02, 1998] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, PETITIONER, VS. HON. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC, IMUS, CAVITE, BRANCH 20; AND HELENA Z. BENITEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 129584 : December 03, 1998] TRIPLE EIGHT INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. LABOR ARBITER POTENCIANO S. CANIZARES, JR. AND ERLINDA R. OSDANA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 127276 : December 03, 1998] DASMARI�AS VILLAGE ASSOCIATION,INC., BERNARDO LICHAYTOO, ANTONIO P. TAMBUNTING, EMIL A. ANDRES AND CAPT. JERRY CODILLA, PETITIONERS VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI (FORMERLY BRANCH 66 NOW BRANCH 147) AND COLEGIO SAN AGUSTIN, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 123979 : December 03, 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS., ALIPIO SANTIANO, JOSE SANDIGAN, ARMENIA PILLUETA AND JOSE VICENTE (JOVY) CHANCO ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 117166-67 : December 03, 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RANDY MANTES, JEROME GARCIA, JOVY VELASCO, AND DOMINGO FRANCISCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [A.M. MTJ-98-1166 : December 04, 1998] ANDRES GUILLEN, EULALIO GUILLEN, VICENTE CID, AND JIMMY BAYAG, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE APRONIANO B. NICOLAS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF PIDDIG-SOLSONA-CARASI, ILOCOS NORTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 130401 : December 04, 1998] LEONARDO ARCENAS REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT CARMELITA ARCENAS VILLANUEVA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARMIE E. ELMA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 153, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG CITY, AND JOSE DELA RIVA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 127393 : December 04, 1998] SPOUSES VALENTINO ORTIZ AND CAMILLA MILAN ORTIZ, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 129567 : December 04, 1998] JOCELYN LABARO, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, EVELYN LABARO, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE VINCENT EDEN C. PANAY AND ALFREDO AVIADOR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 126444 : December 04, 1998] ALFONSO QUIJADA, CRESENTE QUIJADA, REYNELDA QUIJADA, DEMETRIO QUIJADA, ELIUTERIA QUIJADA, EULALIO QUIJADA, AND WARLITO QUIJADA, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, REGALADO MONDEJAR, RODULFO GOLORAN, ALBERTO ASIS, SEGUNDINO RAS, ERNESTO GOLORAN, CELSO ABISO, FERNANDO BAUTISTA, ANTONIO MACASERO, AND NESTOR MAGUINSAY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 124500 : December 04, 1998] PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., RICARDO BONA AND SEVERO SANTIAGO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSI0N AND FLORENTINO LAMSEN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 118438 : December 04, 1998] ALLIED AGRI-BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND CHERRY VALLEY FARMS LIMITED, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 111257 : December 04, 1998] MERCEDES DEIPARINE, RUFINA DEIPARINE, POLICARPIO DEIPARINE, NICHOLAS DEIPARINE, FRANCISCO DEIPARINE, JR., ARESENIO DEIPARINE, DINA CANADA, THERESA DEIPARINE, SOLITA DEIPARINE, JULIO DEIPARINE, TEOFILO DEIPARINE, ELEUTERIO DEIPARINE, DANTE DEIPARINE, ESTRELLA DEIPARINE AND NICHOLAS DEIPARINE PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FIRSTDIVISION), VICENTA DEIPARINE, FORTUNATO DEIPARINE, FELICISIMA DEIPARINE, SALVADOR DEIPARINE, JR., RESTITUTA DEIPARINE, CHILDREN AND HEIRS OF DECEASED SALVADOR DEIPARINE, JR., IRENEO LAROA, DOMINGO LAROA, AND CONCEPCION LAROA, CHILDREN AND HEIRS OF DECEASED FILOMENA DEIPARINE; FROILAN SEGUERRA, ONLY SON AND HEIRS OF LATE SUPRIANA DEIPARINE; IGNACIA DEIPARINE, ANA DEIPARINE, AND PEDRO DEIPARINE, CHILDREN AND HEIRS OF DECEASED SEGUNDO DEIPARINE, RUFO ABALO, AURELIA ABALAO AND MAGDALENA ABALAO, CHILDREN AND HEIRS OF DECEASED MACARIA DEIPARINE, LEO D. BACUS, PEDRO D. BACUS, DORICA D. BACUS, DIONISIO� D. BACUS, AND PRUDY D. BACUS, HEIRS OF DECEASED JUSTINIANI DEIPARINE. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 77865 : December 04, 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL OLIVAREZ, JR., AND DANILO ARELLANO, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 109148 : December 04, 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO BELO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 130716 : December 09, 1998] FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG) AND MAGTANGGOL GUNIGUNDO, (IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PCGG), RESPONDENTS. GLORIA A. JOPSON, CELNAN A. JOPSON, SCARLET A. JOPSON, AND TERESA A. JOPSON, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION.

  • [G.R. No. 127529 : December 10, 1998] PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY PEPSI COLA BOTTLING CO.), PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND RENE ESTILO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 119092 : December 10, 1998] SANITARY STEAM LAUNDRY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, NICANOR BERNABE III, JOSEFINA BERNABE, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AND AS HEIRS OF JASON BERNABE, JOHN JOSEPH BERNABE, VICTOR IGNACIO, JULIETA ENRIQUEZ AND RAMON ENRIQUEZ, RENE TABLANTE, LEOMAR MACASPAC, JR., CHARITO ESTOLANO, NENITA SALUNOY, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AND AS HEIRS OF DALMACIO SALUNOY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. NO. 90301 : December 10, 1998] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUANCHO GATCHALIAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 126518 December 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO BUGAYONG

  • G.R. Nos. 80849 & 81114 December 2, 1998 - STA. INES MELALE FOREST PRODUCTS, CORP. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129079 December 2, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122629 December 2, 1998 - PCPPI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117166-67 December 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. RANDY MANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129584 December 3, 1998 - TRIPLE EIGHT INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127276 December 3, 1998 - DASMARIÑAS VILL. ASSN., INC. ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123979 December 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALIPIO SANTIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111257 December 4, 1998 - MERCEDES DEIPARINE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. MTJ No. 98-1166 December 4, 1998 - ANDRES GUILLEN, ET AL. v. APRONIANO B. NICOLAS

  • G.R. No. 109148 December 4, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ERNESTO BELO

  • G.R. No. 129567 December 4, 1998 - JOCELYN LABARO v. VINCENT EDEN C. PANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118438 December 4, 1998 - ALLIED AGRI-BUSINESS DEV. CO., INC., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124500 December 4, 1998 - PSVSIA, ET AL. v. NLRC and FLORENTINO LAMSEN

  • G.R. No. 126444 December 4, 1998 - ALFONSO QUIJADA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130401 December 4, 1998 - LEONARDO ARCENAS v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77865 December 4, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL OLIVAREZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127393 December 4, 1998 - VALENTIN ORTIZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130716 December 9, 1998 - FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, v. PCGG. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90301 December 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANCHO GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 119092 December 10, 1998 - SANITARY STEAM LAUNDRY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127395 December 10, 1998 - PHIL. TOBACCO FLUE-CURING & REDRYING CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127529 December 10, 1998 - PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121071 December 11, 1998 - PHIL. FEDERATION OF CREDIT COOPERATIVES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125894 December 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARITO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. 126575 December 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OMAR MEDINA

  • G.R. No. 131248 December 11, 1998 - DUNLOP SLAZENGER (PHILS.) v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124329 December 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR MASALIHIT

  • G.R. No. 88202 December 14, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • ADM. CASE No. 1037 December 14, 1998 - VICTORIANO P. RESURRECCION v. CIRIACO C. SAYSON

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1173 December 15, 1998 - CARLITOS D. LAZO v. ANTONIO V. TIONG

  • G.R. No. 103533 December 15, 1998 - MJCI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120575 December 16, 1998 - OLIVIA S. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. SDC-98-3 December 16, 1998 - ERLINDA ALONTO-FRAYNA v. ABDULMAJID J. ASTIH

  • G.R. No. 101240 December 16, 1998 - QUEZON DEV. BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127906 December 16, 1998 - VIOLETA BATARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128619-21 December 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELEUTERIO DIMAPILIS

  • G.R. Nos. 123191 & 123442 December 17, 1998 - OSCAR L. GOZOS, ET AL. v. PATERNO C. TAC-AN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116155 December 17, 1998 - FRANCISCO GULANG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-95-1167 December 21, 1998 - CARMELITA L. LLEDO v. CESAR V. LLEDO

  • G.R. No. 115452 December 21, 1998 - INTL. CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134307 December 21, 1998 - EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118464 December 21, 1998 - HEIRS OF IGNACIO CONTI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120677 December 21, 1998 - FOOD TRADERS HOUSE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83106 December 21, 1998 - ADELAIDA KALUBIRAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998 - FE D. QUITA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128907 December 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO TIRONA

  • G.R. No. 130057 December 22, 1998 - HERMOGINA U. BULILAN v. COA

  • G.R. No. 130339 December 22, 1998 - OMANFIL INT’L. MANPOWER DEV. CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111455 December 23, 1998 - MARISSA A. MOSSESGELD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121791 December 23, 1998 - ENRIQUE SALAFRANCA v. PHILAMLIFE VILL. HOMEOWNERS ASSN., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123421 December 28, 1998 - DANILO J. MAGOS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134495 December 28, 1998 - PERFECTO R. YASAY, JR. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113445 December 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANDRO ABRIA

  • G.R. No. 124957 December 29, 1998 - MASTER SHIRT CO. INC. ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121171 December 29, 1998 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126442 December 29, 1998 - FELICITO BAGUIO, ET AL. v. ROSENDO B. BANDAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125715 December 29, 1998 - RICARDO F. MARQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128395 December 29, 1998 - STOLT-NIELSEN MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129774 December 29, 1998 - NARCISO A. TADEO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129998 December 29, 1998 - NAPOCOR v. LOURDES HENSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129760 December 29, 1998 - RICARDO CHENG v. RAMON B. GENATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108580 December 29, 1998 - CLARITA P. HERMOSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125948 December 29, 1998 - FIRST PHIL. INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117609 December 29, 1998 - HEIRS OF SEVERA P. GREGORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126703 December 29, 1998 - GANDARA MILL SUPPLY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110029-30 December 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO GARGAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132524 December 29, 1998 - FEDERICO C. SUNTAY v. ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY, ET AL.