Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > February 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 123215 February 2, 1998 - NAT’L. STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 123215. February 2, 1999.]

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARSENIO J. MAGPALE, and JOSE MA. P. JACINTO, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


MENDOZA, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision, 1 dated September 11, 1995, of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the special civil action for certiorari filed by petitioner National Steel Corporation (NSC) to set aside the order, dated April 6, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch LVII, City of Makati. In the said order, the trial court denied the motion of petitioner NSC to dismiss the complaint for recovery of personal property which private respondent Jose P. Jacinto had filed.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Private respondent Jacinto was the former owner of record of 100 shares of stock of the Manila Golf and Country Club (MGCC) now owned by and registered in the name of petitioner NSC. On February 9, 1990, he filed a complaint 2 against the NSC, alleging that —

4. In or about 1970, for valuable considerations, Manila Golf and Country Club, Inc. (MGCCI) issued its Stock Certificate No. 1361 to plaintiff representing 100 shares of MGCCI.

5. From about 1972 up to the early part of February 1986, plaintiff was abroad and could not return to the Philippines for reasons beyond his control.

6. When plaintiff returned to the Philippines in 1986, he discovered that Stock Certificate No. 1361 had been cancelled and a replacement Stock Certificate had been issued in the name of NSC.

7. The cancellation and transfer of plaintiff’s Stock Certificate No. 1361 is void for the reasons that: there was no meeting of minds, there was no specific contract between plaintiff and NSC or any parts covering the alleged transfer nor was there any consideration for the same.

8. Despite repeated demands upon NSC to return and re-transfer plaintiff’s 100 shares in MGCCI formerly covered by said Stock Certificate No. 1361, NSC failed and refused and still fails and refuses to comply with the same.

9. MGCCI’s act in cancelling plaintiff’s stock certificate No. 1361 and issuing a replacement certificate in the name of NSC is without basis and illegal considering that there was no valid document evidencing the assignment, sale or transfer by plaintiff to NSG of MGCCI stock certificate No. 1361.

10. In consequence of NSC and MGCCI’s illegal act in causing the cancellation and transfer of plaintiff’s Stock Certificate No. 1361 unto NSC’s name:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

10.1. Plaintiff suffered mental anguish for which an award of moral damages of P1 Million is proper;

10.2. Plaintiff was constrained to litigate and secure the services of counsel for a fee of P100,000.00 and for which NSC and MGCCI should be held liable.

Based on the foregoing allegations, Jacinto prayed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Ordering NSC to execute a deed of assignment re-transferring unto plaintiff the MGCCI certificate issued to the former in replacement of Stock Certificate No. 1361 and to surrender said Deed of Assignment, together with the MGCCI certificate issued to NSC (in replacement of Stock Certificate No. 1361) for cancellation thereof and to order MGCCI to cancel said stock certificate and issue a new one in the name of Jose Ma. P. Jacinto:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

2. If for any reason whatsoever NSC fails or refuses to execute the deed of assignment and surrender NSC’s replacement stock certificate, MGCCI be ordered to:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

2.1. Cancel in its stock and transfer book the stock certificate issued to NSC issued in replacement of certificate No. 1361.

2.2 Issue a new stock certificate in the name of NSC or the stock certificate that might have been issued in replacement thereof.

2.3. Declare as lost and of no force and effect the MGCCI stock certificate now outstanding and registered in the name of NSC.

3. Ordering NSC and MGCCI to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

3.1. P1 Million as moral damages; and

3.2. P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

Other reliefs are also prayed for. 3

Petitioner NSC sought the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription, but its motion was denied by the trial court in an order, dated November 9, 1990. Petitioner NSC brought a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, but again its petition was dismissed by the appellate court on August 30, 1991. Its attempt to secure review in this Court failed as its petition was dismissed in a resolution, dated March 18, 1992.

Petitioner NSC then filed its answer, after which trial was held. It thereafter filed a motion 4 to dismiss the complaint against it on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It alleged:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Plaintiff paid docket and other fees totalling P4,040.00. The certification of Clerk of Court Ma. Corazon Cecelia P. Cuba is attached as Annex A.

2. Under Sec. 7(a) of Rule 141, as amended by the Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc dated September 4, 1990, the docket fees "for filing an action is P600 for the first P150,000.00 and P5.00 for each P1,000.00 in excess of P150.000.00."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. The actual value of the MGCCI share certificate as of February, 1990, when the complaint was filed, was P5,511,000.00.

A certification issued by the MGCCI attesting to the fair market value of a MGCCI share is attached as Annex B.

4. This means that the correct docket fee for the filing of plaintiff’s complaint is approximately P26,805.00 and not P4,040.00 which is the amount plaintiff actually paid.

x       x       x


6. The failure of plaintiff to pay the correct filing fees on February 13, 1990 meant that this court did not acquire jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action. Under the ruling of Sun Insurance, and as explained below, the plaintiff cannot now pay the deficiency in the filing fees because it is already "beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period."cralaw virtua1aw library

The trial court denied petitioner’s motion in an order, dated April 6, 1994. Hence, the latter brought a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, but its petition was dismissed on September 11, 1995. The Court of Appeals ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The principal relief, or prayer in private respondent’s complaint is specific, for the "NSC to execute a deed of assignment re-transferring unto plaintiff the MGCCI certificate . . . in replacement of stock certificate No. 1861 . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is no allegation in the complaint of any quantified amount and/or of the actual value of the stock certificate in question.

There is also no separate cause of action and/or prayer in the face of the complaint that private respondent, even in the alternative, prayed that if the principal relief is unavailing, that defendants be ordered to pay him the actual or equivalent value of the stock certificate, hence there is even no reason or basis to move for a more definite statement or for a bill of particulars of any matter which is not averred in the complaint with sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable petitioner to properly prepare for a more responsive pleading or to prepare for trial.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

x       x       x


Perspicaciously, what should guide the office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Makati, Metro Manila, in assessing the correct docket fees for the filing of the complaint in Civil Case No. 90-4051, when it was filed on February 13, 1990, is what is alleged and prayed for in the complaint. It would be uncalled for and baseless for the clerk of court to consider at that point in time the supposed "actual value of the MGCCI share certificate as of February, 1990, . . . (in the amount of) P5,511,000.00", and then and there assess an additional docket fee of P22,765.00 (P26,805.00 minus P4,040.00), precisely because the said sum of "P5,511,000.00" is not alleged in the body of the complaint, and which is not also sought to be recovered in the action.

There can be no divergence of opinion from the allegations, designation and the reliefs prayed for, as clearly and definitively spelled out in the face of the complaint, that private respondent’s principal relief is for petitioner NSC "to execute a deed of assignment re-transferring unto plaintiff the MGCCI certificate issued to the former in replacement of stock certificate No. 1861 . . ." And there also appears to be no hint of any intention on the part of private respondent to mislead the clerk of court in assessing the correct fees, or to evade the payment of the correct fees.

Hence, this petition raising the following; assignment of errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Assignment of Errors

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CHARACTERIZING THE NATURE OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S ACTION AS ONE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND NOT ONE FOR RECOVERY OF PROPERTY.

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REFUSING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE TACAY [v. Regional Trial Court, 180 SCRA 433 (1989)] AND BPI CREDIT [v. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 601 (1991)] RULINGS.

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S COMPLAINT DUE TO NON-PAYMENT OF THE REQUIRED FILING FEES.

Petitioner NSC correctly argues that the action in this case is for the recovery of property rather than for specific performance and, hence, the docket fee should be based on the value of the property sought to be recovered. It is similar to an action in which petitioner seeks the execution of a deed of sale of a parcel of land in his favor. Such action has been held to be for the recovery of the real property and not for specific performance since his primary objective is to regain the ownership and possession of the parcel of land. In Ruiz v. J .M. Tuason & Co., Inc., it was held: 5

Appellant contends that the present action is transitory because it is one for specific performance and its object is to compel J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. to execute a final deed of sale of the property in question in favor of appellant founded upon compliance with the compromise agreement wherein said company recognized the sale made by Florencio Deudor of said property in favor of Jose Dinglasan who, in the same agreement, was recognized by the company as a purchaser who had already made partial payment of the purchased price of the land.

This contention has no merit. Although appellant’s complaint is entitled to be one for specific performance, yet the fact that he asked that a deed of sale of a parcel of land situated in Quezon City be issued in his favor and that a transfer certificate of title covering said land be issued to him shows that the primary objective and nature of the action is to recover the parcel of land itself because to execute in favor of appellant the conveyance requested there is need to make a finding that he is the owner of the land which in the last analysis resolves itself into an issue of ownership.

Similarly, if, as in this case, plaintiff, herein private respondent Jacinto, seeks the execution in his favor of a deed of assignment of shares of stock, it follows that the action is for the recovery of personal property, the main purpose of which is to regain the ownership and possession of the said shares of stock.

Accordingly, as petitioner NSC contends, private respondent Jacinto should pay docket fees based on the value of the shares of stock and the amount of damages he seeks to recover. Under Rule 141, �7(a) of the Rules of Court as it stood at the time of the filing of the complaint against petitioner, docket fees for ordinary civil actions should be based on the total sum claimed, exclusive of interest, or the stated value of the property in litigation. 6 Thus, the docket fees should be computed on the basis of the value of the property and the amount of related damages claimed, exclusive of interest. As we held in Tacay v. Regional Trial Court, 7 where the action involves real property and a related claim for damages as well, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both (a) the value of the property and (b) the total amount of related damages sought. The Court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of the fees within such reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in in the meantime.

It does not follow, however, that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint for failure of private respondent to pay the correct amount of docket fees. Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial court may allow the plaintiff in an action to pay the same within a reasonable time before the expiration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 8 If the plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, the defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be considered in estoppel. In the latter case, the balance between the appropriate docket fees and the amount actually paid by the plaintiff will be considered a lien on any award he may obtain in his favor. Thus, in Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held: 9

The petitioner raised the issue regarding jurisdiction for the first time in its Brief filed with the public respondent in CA-G.R. CV No. 26220 on 2 February 1991. After vigorously participating in all stages of the case before the trial court and even invoking the trial court’s authority in order to ask for affirmative relief, the petitioner is effectively barred by estoppel from challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction. Although the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings as the same is conferred by law, it is nonetheless settled that a party may be barred from raising it on ground of laches or estoppel. The deficiency in the payment of the docket fees must, however, be considered a lien on the judgment which must be remitted to the clerk of court of the court a quo upon the execution of the judgment.

In the case at bar, petitioner NSC filed in 1990 a motion to dismiss but did not raise this point. Instead it based his motion on prescription. Upon the denial by the trial court of its motion to dismiss, it filed an answer, submitted its pre-trial brief, and participated in the proceedings before the trial court. It was only in 1993 — more than three years after filing its motion to dismiss — that petitioner NSC again filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Clearly, petitioner is estopped from raising this issue. Indeed, while the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any state of an action, nevertheless, the party raising such question may be estopped if he has actively taken part in the very proceedings which he questions and he only objects to the court’s jurisdiction because the judgment or the order subsequently rendered is adverse to him. 10

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated September 11, 1995, is AFFIRMED. The deficiency in the payment of the docket fees shall be a lien on any judgment which may be rendered in favor of private respondent Jose P. Jacinto.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Puno, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Per Justice Artemon Luna and concurred in by Justices Ramon Mabutas, Jr. and Jose de la Rama.

2. Comment, Annex 1, Rollo, pp. 83-85.

3. Id., pp. 84-85.

4. Petition, Annex F, Rollo, pp. 58-59.

5. 7 SCRA 202, 206-207 (1963).

6. As amended by Administrative Circular No. 11-94, Rule 141, �7(a) now provides that docket fees for ordinary civil actions should be based on "the total sum claimed, inclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, or the stated value of the property in litigation."cralaw virtua1aw library

7. 180 SCRA 433, 444 (1989).

8. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, 170 SCRA 274 (1989).

9. 224 SCRA 477, 491 (1993).

10. Martinez v. De la Merced, 174 SCRA 182 (1989).




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






February-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. RTJ 98-1400 February 1, 1998 - CARLOS DIONISIO v. ZOSIMO V. ESCANO

  • G.R. Nos. 107964-66 February 1, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID G. NITAFAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122161 & 120991 February 1, 1998 - CIR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122485 February 1, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY MAHINAY

  • G.R. No. 125959 February 1, 1998 - JOSE MARIA M. ASUNCION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128508 February 1, 1998 - DANIEL G. FAJARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • A.M. No. P-97-1253 February 2, 1998 - AIDA RANGEL-ROQUE v. GERARDO S. RIVOTA

  • G.R. No. 123215 February 2, 1998 - NAT’L. STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128287 February 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZAL ESPIRITU

  • G.R. No. 131277 February 2, 1998 - ANGELA C. TANKIKO, ET AL. v. JUSTINIANO CEZAR, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 132805 February 2, 1998 - PAL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111027 February 3, 1998 - BERNARDINO RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case CBD No. 190 February 4, 1998 - CORAZON T. REONTOY v. LIBERATO R. IBADLIT

  • G.R. No. 128364 February 4, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. 131977 February 4, 1998 - PEDRO MENDOZA v. RAY ALLAS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1177 February 8, 1998 - GREGORIO LORENA, ET AL. v. ADOLFO V. ENCOMIENDA

  • G.R. No. 116281 February 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. 129397 February 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO SOLEMA LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 122787 February 9, 1998 - JUAN CALMA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119077 February 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. MARIANO VERDE

  • G.R. No. 120450 February 10, 1998 - ASSOC. LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124791 February 10, 1998 - JOSE RAMON CARCELLER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104726 February 11, 1998 - VICTOR YAM & YEK SUN LENT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106947 February 11, 1998 - PLDT CO. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117385 February 11, 1998 - BPI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117963 February 11, 1998 - AZCOR MANUFACTURING INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119509 February 11, 1998 - ENRIQUE A. ARBOLEDA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121696 February 11, 1998 - C. PLANAS COMMERCIAL, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122248 February 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER DORADO

  • G.R. No. 123099 February 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO OLIVER

  • G.R. No. 123969 February 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TAVAS

  • G.R. No. 125298 February 11, 1998 - CMP FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126717 February 11, 1998 - GREAT PACIFIC LIFE EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL. v. GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORP.

  • G.R. No. 130906 February 11, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX S. IMPERIAL, JR.

  • A.M. No. 97-1-03-MTC February 15, 1998 - REPORT OF THE FINANCIAL AUDIT

  • A.M. No. 98-8-246-RTC February 15, 1998 - RE: ABSENCE WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE OF DARLENE A. JACOBA

  • G.R. No. 76276 February 15, 1998 - ASIAN TRADING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96685 February 15, 1998 - CARLOS A. GOTHONG LINES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127578 February 15, 1998 - MANUEL DE ASIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132753 February 15, 1998 - MARIO SIASOCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133502 February 15, 1998 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD DIZON, ET AL. v. JAIME D. DISCAYA

  • A.M. No. 98-1-12-RTC February 17, 1998 - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC-BR. 24

  • G.R. No. 121099 February 17, 1998 - FIDEL T. SALAMERA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 122737 February 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGON MANES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-93-794 February 18, 1998 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ANASTACIA DIAZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-96-1365 February 18, 1998 - ROBERT G. YOUNG v. PASTOR V. DE GUZMAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1409 February 18, 1998 - ROSE GODINEZ v. ANTONIO S. ALANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41621 February 18, 1998 - PASTORA VALMONTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112941 February 18, 1998 - NEUGENE MARKETING INC., ET. AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 125498 February 18, 1998 - CONRADO B. RODRIGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126027 February 18, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. BUENAVENTURA BATIDOR

  • G.R. No. 127494 February 18, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO MARABILLAS

  • G.R. No. 131909 February 18, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CABRAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110554 February 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMY SAGUN

  • G.R. No. 113253 February 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL ALMACIN

  • G.R. No. 118311 February 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ANTONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124630 February 19, 1998 - JANG LIM, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127139 February 19, 1998 - JAIME C. LOPEZ v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128072 February 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY BENITO

  • G.R. No. 131552 February 19, 1998 - ARSENIO V. VILLA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47380 February 23, 1998 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107135 February 23, 1998 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117666 February 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO M. VILLALUNA

  • G.R. No. 121422 February 23, 1998 - NOEL CRUZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123880 February 23, 1998 - MARANAW HOTELS AND RESORT CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104171 February 24, 1998 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. B.F. GOODRICH PHILS. INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127659 February 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS BAHENTING

  • A.M. No. 98-3-112-RTC February 25, 1998 - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC-Br. 162

  • G.R. No. 91999 February 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO PIAMONTE

  • G.R. No. 107364 February 25, 1998 - FELIPE BUÑAG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115624 February 25, 1998 - ANTONIO MAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115712 February 25, 1998 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116535-36 February 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN TABARANGAO

  • G.R. No. 116909 February 25, 1998 - VIVENCIO M. RUIZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117439 February 25, 1998 - CONRADO COLARINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122178 February 25, 1998 - DANILO DIMABAYAO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122507 February 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO LAPINOSO

  • G.R. No. 126405 February 25, 1998 - JOSEFA E. NEPOMUCENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126707 February 25, 1998 - BLANQUITA E. DELA MERCED, ET AL. v. JOSELITO P. DELA MERCED

  • G.R. No. 127697 February 25, 1998 - ALEX DEMATA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127177 February 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO AMBRAY

  • G.R. No. 127570 February 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELANIO BOLATETE

  • G.R. No. 130138 February 25, 1998 - MACARIO MISENA, ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO RONGAVILLA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1292 February 26, 1998 - JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE v. ROLANDO R. GATDULA