Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > January 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 124326 January 22, 1998 - BOYET SEMPIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 124326. January 22, 1998.]

BOYET SEMPIO, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and AURELIA L. TUAZON, Respondents.

Sycip Salazar Hernandez and Gatmaitan for Petitioner.

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura Sayoc and De los Angeles for Miguel Lim.

Balgos and Perez for Benhar Int’l., Inc.

Quiroz and Young for Mgt. Committee of Ind’l. Corp. and ALFC.

SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES GENERALLY ACCORDED RESPECT AND FINALITY; EXCEPTION. — The settled doctrine is that factual findings of an administrative agency are accorded respect and, at times, finality for they have acquired the expertise inasmuch as their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters. Nonetheless, these doctrines do not apply when the board or official has gone beyond his statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers or clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty or with grave abuse of discretion. In Leongson v. Court of Appeals, we held "once the actuation of the administrative official or administrative board or agency is tainted by a failure to abide by the command of the laws then it is incumbent on the courts of justice to set matters right, with this Tribunal having the last say on the matter.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — We hold that the SEC acted arbitrarily when it approved the Revised BENHAR/RUBY Plan. As found by the Court of Appeals, the plan contained provisions which circumvented its final decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 18310, nullifying the deeds of assignment of credits and mortgages executed by RUBY’s creditors in favor of BENHAR, as well as this Court’s Resolution in G.R. No. 96675, affirming said court of Appeals decision. Specifically, the Revised BENHAR/RUBY Plan considered as Valid the advance payments made by Benhar in favor of some of RUBY’S creditors. The nullity of BENHAR’s unauthorized dealings with RUBY’s creditors is settled. The deeds of assignment between BENHAR and RUBY’s creditors had been categorically declared void by the SEC Hearing Panel in two (2) orders issued on January 12, 1989 and March 15, 1989.

3. ID.; ACTIONS; JUDGMENTS; RULING IN OLAC CASE (G.R. No. 84256, 213 SCRA 321) APPLIES ONLY WHERE THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DISPOSITIVE PART AND THE OPINION OF THE COURT. — The principle laid, down in Olac that the dispositive portion or the fallo constitute the court’s resolution in a given case, while the discussion in the body of the decision merely expresses the court’s opinion applies only when there is a conflict between the dispositive part (fallo) and the opinion of the court contained in the decision. Hence, in the execution of the court’s judgment, the fallo should be considered as the final disposition of the case before it. Such conflict does not exist in the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 18310. It is crystal clear that what the Court of Appeals affirmed in CA-GR SP No. 18310 was the nullity of the deeds of assignment in favor of BENHAR. In a minute resolution in G.R. No. 96675, we even sustained the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA-GR SP No. 18310.

4. ID.; ID.; ESTOPPEL; A PARTY CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS, SUBMIT HIS CASE FOR DECISION. ACCEPT JUDGMENT IF FAVORABLE BUT ATTACK IT IF ADVERSE. — In any event, petitioners actively participated in the proceedings before the SEC and the Court of Appeals when private respondents sought the nullification of the subject deeds. Petitioners are, therefore, estopped from questioning anew the validity of the deeds of assignment executed by RUBY’s creditors in favor of BENHAR. Petitioners should know that it is not for a party to participate in the proceedings, submit his case for decision, accept the judgment if, it is favorable to him but attack it for any reason when it is adverse.

5. COMMERCIAL LAW; PRIVATE CORPORATIONS; REHABILITATION, CONSTRUED. — Rehabilitation contemplates a continuance of corporate life and activities in an effort to restore and reinstate the corporation to its former position of successful operation and solvency.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPOINTMENT OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, PURPOSE. — When a distressed company is placed under rehabilitation, the appointment of a management committee follows to avoid collusion between the previous management and creditors it might favor, to the prejudice of the other creditors. All assets of a corporation under rehabilitation receivership are held in trust for the equal benefit of all creditors to preclude one from obtaining an advantage or preference over another by the expediency of attachment, execution or otherwise. As between the creditors, the key phrase is equality in equity. Once the corporation threatened by bankruptcy is taken over by a receiver, all the creditors ought to stand on equal footing. Not any one of them should be paid ahead of the others. This is precisely the reason for suspending all pending claims against the corporation under receivership.

7. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; APPEALS; ISSUES CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL. — The settled rule is that issues not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal — in this case, in a motion for reconsideration — for being offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.

8. ID.; ID.; FORUM-SHOPPING; RULE THEREON WILL NOT APPLY WHERE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS REPRESENT DIFFERENT GROUPS WITH DIFFERENT INTERESTS; CASE’ AT BAR. — Petitioners charge that private respondents are guilty of forum-shopping. It appears that the three(3) private respondents filed separate petitions before the Court of Appeals upon receipt of the adverse ruling of the SEC en banc. Private respondent Miguel commenced CA-G.R. SP No. 32404, thru its counsel Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc and De los Angeles. For their part, private respondent Allied leasing and the original management committee of RUBY, represented by Attorney Waiter T. Young, commenced CA-G.R. SP No. 32483 and CA-G.R. SP No. 32469, respectively. In CA-G.R. SP No. 32483, Atty. Young signed for and in behalf of the law firm Ocampo, Quiroz, Pesayco and Associates, while in CA-G.R. SP No. 32469, Atty. Young signed for the law firm Quiroz and Young. In both petitions, he used the same business address — Allied Bank Center, 6754 Ayala Avenue, Makati City. We hold that private respondents are not guilty of forum-shopping. In the case at bar, private respondents represent different groups with different interests — the minority stockholders’ group represented by private respondent Lim; the unsecured creditors group, Allied Leasing & Finance Corporation; and the old management group. Each group has distinct rights to protect. In line with our ruling in Ramos, the cases filed by private respondents should be consolidated. In fact, BENHAR and RUBY did just that — in their urgent motions filed on December 1, 1993 and December 6, 1993, respectively, they prayed for the consolidation of the cases before the Court of Appeals.


D E C I S I O N


PUNO, J.:


Petitioner implores this court to set aside the Decision 1 of respondent Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1993 and its Resolution 2 dated March 21, 1996 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in CA-G.R. CV No. 32744. 3 Respondent court found the dismissal, on the ground of litis pendentia, of respondent Aurelia L. Tuazon’s complaint for injunction and damages in Civil Case No. 681-M-90 against petitioner, to be reversible error and accordingly ordered the remand of the case to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Bulacan, for further proceedings.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The facts. Petitioner is the son of spouses Bernardo Sempio and Genoveva Ligot in whose name, the parcel of land subject of the instant case, is registered as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-6263. The land is situated in San Miguel, Bulacan and contains an area of approximately Three Thousand One Hundred Ninety-Two (3,192) square meters.

Sometime before 1982, said spouses mortgaged the land to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to secure a loan of One Hundred Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred Pesos (P116,700.00) 4 This loan was not fully paid; consequently, the DBP extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. At the public auction sale, the DBP emerged as the highest bidder and was correspondingly issued a Certificate of Sale dated March 1, 1982. 5

On October 17, 1989, the DBP filed a Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession Ex-Parte in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Bulacan 6 Docketed as Civil Case No. P-1787-89, said petition was opposed by Bernardo Sempio in an appropriate pleading filed on February 28, 1990. 7 Subsequently, respondent Tuazon filed a Complaint in Intervention claiming that she was the new owner of the land, having already purchased the same, albeit in the name of her daughter, Jeanette T. Baylon, from the DBP. 8

On March 8, 1990, the Sempio spouses filed a Complaint for Annulment of Foreclosure, Reconveyance of Title and Damages in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bulacan. They contended, among others, that they were not notified of the foreclosure sale in violation of the notice, posting and publication requirements under Act No. 3135. 9 Said complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 181-M-90.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

In the same year, 1990, respondent Tuazon filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Bulacan, a Complaint for Injunction and Damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 681-M-90. She invoked her exclusive right to the land owner and accordingly asked the trial court to enjoin petitioner from digging any portion of the land and to assess against the latter the damages warranted under such circumstances.

On September 24, 1990, the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings instituted by the DBP upon the land, were nullified by the trial court in Civil Case No. 181-M-90.

On December 21, 1990, the trial court ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 681-M-90 on the ground of lis pendens or auter action pendant, specifically, the pendency of Civil Case No. P-1787-89 for issuance of writ of possession filed by the DBP. The trial court also ratiocinated that respondent Tuazon should have sought protection of her right as new owner of the land in Civil Case No. 181-M-90 where the validity of the foreclosure proceedings undertaken by the DBP, her predecessor-in-interest, was at issue.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On October 21, 1991, DBP’s Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession Ex-Parte was denied in Civil Case No. P-1787-89. Respondent Tuazon’s Complaint in Intervention was also dismissed.

The DBP sought relief from the Court of Appeals: in Civil Case No. P1787-89, through ordinary appeal; and in Civil Case No. 181-M-90, through a Petition for Certiorari.

In a Decision dated November 26, 1993, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in its refusal to issue a writ of possession in favor of the DBP or respondent Tuazon as plaintiff in intervention in Civil Case No. P-1787-89.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

In contrast, the Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No 181-M-90. We, however, reversed said appellate court in our Decision 10 dated October 28, 1996 in G.R. No. 115953. The dispositive portion of that decision states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Court of Appeals of 15 February 1994 reversing its Decision of 19 February 1991 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, the Decision of the RTC-Br. 19, of Malolos, Bulacan, dated 24 September 1990 (in its Civil Case No. 181-M-90) (a) declaring null and void the extrajudicial foreclosure, the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale, and all consequent proceedings over the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-6263 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan; (b) directing herein petitioners Genoveva Ligot and the Heirs of Bernardo Sempio to pay respondent Development Bank of the Philippines P119,320.00 with legal rate of interest effective 1 March 1982 minus P30,301.00; (c) ordering respondent Development Bank of the Philippines to cancel the mortgage upon full payment of the loan; and (c) further ordering respondent Development Bank of the Philippines to pay petitioners P5,000.00 for attorney’s fees, is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the ‘legal rate of interest’ is increased to eighteen percent (18%) per annum, as stipulated by the parties.

SO ORDERED." 11

In the meantime, from the decision of the trial court dismissing Civil Case No. 681-M-90, respondent Tuazon filed an appeal to respondent Court of Appeals, which docketed the same as CA-G.R. CV No. 32744.

On November 29, 1993, respondent court promulgated the Decision 12 setting aside the dismissal order of, and remanding the case to, the court a quo for further proceedings.

Petitioner Boyet Sempio, one among those substituted as heirs in place of Bernardo Sempio who died during the pendency of the instant proceedings, filed a Motion for Reconsideration 13 on January 3, 1994. In the Resolution 14 dated March 21, 1996, however, respondent Court of Appeals denied the motion.

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

Petitioner ascribes reversible error to respondent court for ruling that neither identity of parties nor identity of causes of action attends Civil Case No. 681-M-90 vis-a-vis Civil Cases Nos. P-1787-89 and 181-M-90 as to warrant the dismissal of the former on the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata.

In her Comment 15 dated December 19, 1996, respondent Tuazon echoed the overriding concern of respondent Court of Appeals in the fact that the issue of whether or not she were a purchaser in good faith and for value, was never passed upon in both Civil Cases Nos. P-1787-89 and 181-M-90. Respondent court postulated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . [T]here is no identity of parties. The fact that Aurelia L. Tuazon is purported to be the successor of Development Bank of the Philippines is not enough to detract from our original pronouncement. An innocent purchased for value may set up defenses not available to its predecessor-in-interest. The former does not necessarily step into the shoes of the latter.

Similarly, we find no identity of causes of action between the two. Civil Case No. 181-M-90 is an action for annulment of foreclosure, reconveyance of title and damages, while the instant case is an action for damages against the defendants who remain in possession of a property she purchased and who are digging the premises to the damage of the plaintiff appellant." 16

On September 11, 1997, Petitioner, by way of a Reply to Comment, 17 exhorted us to forthwith grant the instant petition in view of our Decision dated October 28, 1996, in G.R. No. 115953, ultimately upholding the nullification of the foreclosure proceedings as ordered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bulacan, in Civil Case No. 181-M-90. No less than this court having restored the Sempios to their pre-foreclosure status as exclusive owners of the land, petitioner submits that the issue of ownership ought not to be re-litigated in Civil Case No. 681-M-90.

In our Resolution 18 dated October 6, 1997, we gave due course to the instant petition.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Indeed, in the light of the foregoing circumstances and more, the grant of this petition is in order.

The requisites for lis pendens are: (a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity in both cases is such that the judgment that may be rendered in the pending case would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other. 19

All these concur in the instant case.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

First. Respondent Tuazon contends that there is no identity of parties to justify the application of the doctrine of lis pendens, considering that while she is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 681-M-90, she was only an intervenor in Civil Case No. P-1787-89 and was never at all a party in Civil Case No. 181-M-90.

The foregoing argument is, however, premised on the wrong notion that identity of parties is calibrated by their strict sameness or a total lack of differentiation among them.

Well-settled is the rule that only substantial, and not absolute, identity of parties is required for lis pendens, or in any case, res judicata, to lie. 20 There is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case albeit the latter was not impleaded in the first case. 21

Respondent Tuazon, concededly, was not impleaded as party-defendant in Civil Case No. 181-M-90. This court, however, is not oblivious to the fact that she purchased the land from the DBP at a time when the latter, despite non-redemption by the Sempios of the land within the applicable period, had not as yet effectuated the cancellation of TCT No. T-6263 and the issuance of a certificate of title in the name of the DBP. Respondent Tuazon apparently bought the land with the actual knowledge, or at least, she ought to have known, that the DBP was not the registered owner thereof. As such, respondent Tuazon cannot invoke the protection accorded by the law to purchasers of real property in good faith and for value. 22 Moreover, respondent Tuazon should also be taken to task for failing to make inquiry concerning the rights of the Sempios who were then and are until now, in possession of the land. Such failure to take the ordinary precautions which a prudent person would have taken under the circumstances, specially in buying a piece of land in the actual, visible and public possession of persons other than the vendor, constitutes gross negligence amounting to bad faith. 23

Considering the foregoing, it cannot be denied that the interests of respondent Tuazon are inextricably intertwined with those of the DBP such that the former’s exercise of her rights as purchaser-transferee of the land foreclosed by the DBP, is conditioned on the latter’s successful defense of the validity of its foreclosure procedures in Civil Case No. 181-M-90. Thus, a community of interest, and corollarily, substantial identity of parties, exist between respondent Tuazon and the DBP insofar as Civil Cases Nos. 181-M-90 and 681-M-90 are concerned.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Likewise, substantial identity of parties obtains between Civil Cases Nos. P-1787-89 and 681-M-90. That respondent Tuazon was a mere intervenor in Civil Case No. P-1787-89 should not preclude us from appreciating the existence of identity of parties as a requisite of lis pendens because no less indubitable is the uniform interest of respondent Tuazon as new owner of the land in both cases. Be it as intervenor seeking to obtain possession of the land in Civil Case No. P-1787-89 or as plaintiff seeking to enjoin others from using the same and to collect the appropriate damages in Civil Case No. 681-M-90, respondent Tuazon, in both cases, asserted what she believed to be vested in her: that single, indivisible right as exclusive owner of the land.

Second. Respondent Tuazon adopts the posture of respondent Court of Appeals that different causes of action underlie Civil Cases Nos. P-1787-89, 181-M-90 and 681-M-90, which involve issuance of a writ of possession, annulment of foreclosure, and injunction with damages, respectively.

What impresses us as dissimilar, however, is only the form by which respondent Tuazon has sought to enforce her right as new owner of the land, following its sale to her by the DBP. In civil Case No. P-1787-89, she intervened, anchoring her possessory claim on her right as new owner of the land. Invoking the same right, respondent Tuazon herself filed Civil Case No. 681-M-90 to enjoin the Sempios from digging portions of the land which she claims to be hers in exclusive ownership and to collect from them the appropriate damages for violation of her ownership rights. It is this same right that stood to be defeated in Civil Case No. 181-M-90, should the foreclosure proceedings be voided and DBP’s title to the land, annulled, considering that respondent Tuazon purchased the same from the DBP with notice that the DBP was neither the registered owner nor the actual possessor thereof, rendering her a purchaser in bad faith not entitled to any protection under the law.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Thus, whether we inquire into the unity of rights asserted in the various actions filed on the basis of an identical set of facts involving respondent Tuazon, or we apply the true test of identity of causes of action that transcends the form of the action and rather evaluates whether or not the same evidence would support and establish the several actions pending, 24 there is no denying that identity of causes of action lies in the instant case.

There is only one cause of action running through respondent Tuazon’s litigious undertakings: the continued violation of what she believes to be her right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of the land. Therefore, evidence of her exclusive ownership of the land is indispensable in prosecuting her claims in both Civil Cases Nos. P-1787-89 and 681-M-90. Although respondent Tuazon could not have proffered such evidence in Civil Case No. 181-M-90 where she was not impleaded, her rights are inherently contingent on those of the DBP since she may not be deemed a purchaser in good faith and accorded legal protection as such. At any rate, the parties are bound not only as regards every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat their claims or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all other matters that could have been adjudged in that case.25cralaw:red

Finally, respondent Tuazon cannot innocently pretend insulation from the legal effects of the non-issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the DBP and the nullification of its foreclosure proceedings. The DBP having been legally declared non-owner of the land and the Sempios, including petitioner, having been restored by no less than this court to full ownership thereof, respondent Tuazon is perforce bound thereby, and Civil Case No. 681-M-90 was therefore correctly dismissed by the court a quo on the ground of lis pendens, although too, the additional ground of res judicata now obtains.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1993 and its Resolution dated March 21, 1996 are hereby SET ASIDE and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Bulacan, in Civil Case No. 681-M-90, is hereby REINSTATED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Regalado, Mendoza and Martinez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola and concurred in by Associate Justices Serafin V.C. Guingona and Corona Ibay Somera; Rollo, pp. 23-29.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola and concurred in by Associate Justices Corona Ibay Somera and Portia Alino-Hormachuelos; Rollo, pp. 36-38.

3. Entitled, "Aurelia L. Tuazon, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Boyet Sempio, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees" .

4. See Decision of this court in G.R. No. 115953, entitled "Genoveva Ligot Sempio and Heirs of Bernardo Sempio, Petitioners v. Court of Appeals and Development Bank of the Philippines, Respondents, promulgated on October 28, 1996 (263 SCRA 617, 618 [1996]).

5. See Decision of the Court of Appeals in Ca-G.R. CV No. 37057, entitled, Development Bank of the Philippines, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sps. Bernardo Sempio, Et Al., Oppositors-Appellees, Aurelia Tuazon, Intervenor-Appellant," promulgated on November 26, 1993.

6. Id.

7. Id.

8. Id.

9. See Note No. 4.

10. Penned by Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Teodoro R. Padilla, Jose C. Vitug, Santiago M. Kapunan and Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr.; Rollo, pp. 68-80.

11. Ibid., p. 79.

12. See Note No. 1.

13. Rollo, pp. 30-34.

14. See Note No. 2.

15. Rollo, pp. 45-50.

16. Court of Appeals Resolution dated March 21, 1996, p. 2, Rollo, p. 37.

17. Rollo, pp. 61-65.

18. Rollo, p. 81.

19. Victronics Computers, Inc. v. RTC, Br. 63, Makati, 217 SCRA 517, 529 [1993]; Sanpiro Finance Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 220 SCRA 527, 534 [1993].

20. Santos v. Court of Appeals 226 SCRA 630, 637 [1993]; Anticamara v. Ong, 82 SCRA 337, 342 [1978]; Suarez v. Municipality of Naujan, 18 SCRA 682, 688 [1996].

21. Anticamara v. Ong, supra.

22. Claverias v. Quingco, 207 SCRA 66, 82 [1992].

23. Bautista v. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 446. 450 [1994].

24. Development Bank of the Philippines v. Pundogar, 215 SCRA 118, 132 [1993].

25. Gabuya v. Layug, 250 SCRA 218, 221 [1995]; Carlet v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., G.R. No. 114275, July 7, 1997.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





January-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-1-01-MTCC January 5, 1998 - REPORT OF COA ON THE SHORTAGE OF THE ACCOUNTABILITIES OF LILIA S. BUENA

  • G.R. Nos. 118342 & 118367 January 5, 1998 - DBP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122704 January 5, 1998 - PEDRO CHICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108369 January 7, 1998 - CINDY AND LYNSY GARMENT, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111710 January 7, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO ABUAN

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1385 January 8, 1998 - RAMON T. ARDOSA v. LOLITA O. GAL-LANG, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-98-1260 January 14, 1998 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. CESAR TORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108772 January 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY OBELLO

  • G.R. Nos. 113250-52 January 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO MAGPANTAY

  • G.R. No. 117043 January 14, 1998 - FELIX VILLA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120616 January 14, 1998 - LONGINO BUHISAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113592 January 15, 1998 - INDUSTRIAL AND TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128399 January 15, 1998 - CAGAYAN SUGAR MILLING CO. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84857 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO DELA ROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110315 January 16, 1998 - RENATO CUDIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 111313-14 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIE VILLAMOR

  • G.R. No. 112035 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANFILO CABILES

  • G.R. No. 113296 January 16, 1998 - ABC DAVAO AUTO SUPPLY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113804 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO BATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116629 January 16, 1998 - NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117683 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO TANEO

  • G.R. No. 118883 January 16, 1998 - SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF SAN ANDRES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120366 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BACCAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122046 January 16, 1998 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122770 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO AGBAYANI

  • G.R. No. 123455 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD HILARIO

  • G.R. No. 124290 January 16, 1998 - ALLIED BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125906 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO AQUINO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1065 January 20, 1998 - JOSEPHINE R. TULIAO v. JOSE O. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 120107 January 20, 1998 - DANILO P. AGUAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120180 January 20, 1998 - LINELL VILLARUEL, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120334 & 120337 January 20, 1998 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 122098 January 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE TENORIO

  • G.R. No. 122100 January 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO TUMALA, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 124185-87 January 20, 1998 - RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124705 January 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY SUMALPONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107725 January 22, 1998 - ESPERO SALAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115555-59 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116775 January 22, 1998 - HEIRS OF PASCASIO URIARTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119074-75 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO PACISTOL

  • G.R. No. 120969 January 22, 1998 - ALEJANDRO MARAGUINOT, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121193 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBITONIO PALMA GIL

  • G.R. No. 124326 January 22, 1998 - BOYET SEMPIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124736 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO GALLO

  • G.R. No. 127296 January 22, 1998 - EDUBIGIS GORDULA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128379 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRANDO RAVANES

  • G.R. No. 105188 January 23, 1998 - MYRON C. PAPA v. A.U. VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113911 January 23, 1998 - VINTA MARITIME, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115625 January 23, 1998 - ESMUNDO B. RIVERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115809 January 23, 1998 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELVIN MENDOZA

  • G.R. Nos. 125218 & 128077 January 23, 1998 - FILSTREAM INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-98-1397 January 26, 1998 - DEOGRACIAS VILLALUZ JR., ET AL. v. WENIFREDO A. ARMENTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120556 January 26, 1998 - HDA. DAPDAP I, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121908 January 26, 1998 - ESTER SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123989 January 26, 1998 - DAVID B. CORPUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127850 January 26, 1998 - MARIA ARCAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128421 January 26, 1998 - TRANS INTERNATIONAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Bar Matter No. 810 January 27, 1998 - PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH BY ARTHUR M. CUEVAS

  • G.R. No. 118939 January 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBINSON TIMBLOR

  • G.R. No. 121468 January 27, 1998 - ARSENIO DELOS REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • Adm. Case CBD No. 190 January 28, 1998 - CORAZON T. REONTOY v. LIBERATO R. IBADLIT

  • Adm. Case No. 2884 January 28, 1998 - IRENE RAYOS-OMBAC v. ORLANDO A. RAYOS

  • Adm. Case No. 3919 January 28, 1998 - SOCORRO T. CO v. GODOFREDO N. BERNARDINO

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ-94-986, MTJ-95-1052, MTJ-95-1069 January 28, 1998 - MIGUEL ABARQUEZ v. BIENVENIDO M. REBOSURA

  • G.R. No. 91262 January 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO LLAGUNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105892 January 28, 1998 - LEIDEN FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110921 January 28, 1998 - BALTAZAR L. VILLANUEVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116765 January 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB QUITORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119835 January 28, 1998 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH BARRIENTOS

  • G.R. No. 121004 January 28, 1998 - ROMEO LAGATIC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121534 January 28, 1998 - JUAN M. CASIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121901 January 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARITA BAHATAN

  • G.R. No. 122075 January 28, 1998 - HAGONOY RURAL BANK v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125334 January 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIO TABUGOCA

  • G.R. No. 126196 January 28, 1998 - GREGORIO C. MORALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127549 January 28, 1998 - CESAR STA. MARIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1135 January 29, 1998 - SALAM NAGA PANGADAPUN v. AMER R. IBRAHIM

  • G.R. No. 106233 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBINSON ESTRERA

  • G.R. No. 110495 January 29, 1998 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114385 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN JEREZ

  • G.R. No. 116382 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MA. LOURDES BAUTISTA DE GUIANG

  • G.R. No. 117572 January 29, 1998 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120921 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE BALLESTEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121824 January 29, 1998 - BRITISH AIRWAYS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121898 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE H. ARANJUEZ

  • G.R. No. 123151 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABINO GEMENTIZA

  • G.R. No. 124521 January 29, 1998 - MICHAEL O. MASTURA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 127073 & 126995 January 29, 1998 - JOSE P. DANS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. 127823 January 29, 1998 - "J" MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. FELICIDAD SIA, JR., ET AL.

  • CBD Adm. Case No. 313 January 30, 1998 - AUGUSTO G. NAVARRO, ET AL. v. ROSENDO MENESES III

  • G.R. Nos. 106210-11 January 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO LISING, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115253-74 January 30, 1998 - ANTONIO P. CALLANTA, ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118744 January 30, 1998 - IRENEO V. GUERRERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119246 January 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CORREA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123872 January 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN MONTILLA