Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > March 1998 Decisions > G.R. No 127373 March 25, 1998 - ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 127373. March 25, 1999.]

ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD and ILIGAN LIGHT & POWER, INC., Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and ASSOCIATION OF MINDANAO INDUSTRIES (AMI), representing among others the following member-companies: ALSON/ILIGAN CEMENT CORP., MABUHAY VINYL CORP., MCCI CORP., MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORP., and NATIONAL STEEL CORP., Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


PANGANIBAN, J.:


Normally, electric power generated by the National Power Corporation (NPC) is sold through private utility firms authorized to operate within a franchise area. In the present case, the private respondents bypassed the franchise holder in their area and obtained power directly from the NPC. Petitioner, on the other hand, wants a disconnection of such direct supply. Which agency of the government has jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute — the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) or the Department of Energy (DOE)?

The Case


This is the main question posed in the Petition for Review before us, which seeks to set aside the September 27, 1994 Decision 1 and November 19, 1996 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals 3 (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 33969. In its assailed Decision, the CA held that it was the DOE, no longer the ERB, which had jurisdiction over direct connection and disconnection issues. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads: 4

"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the order dated April 7, 1994 of respondent Energy Regulatory Board in ERB Case No. 93-97 entitled ‘In re: Petition for Implementation of Cabinet Policy Reforms in the Power Sector,’ is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and said respondent ERB is directed to cease and desist from proceeding with the trial of and to dismiss said ERB Case No. 93-97 for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition therein."cralaw virtua1aw library

The assailed Resolution denied the motions for reconsideration filed separately by the ERB and the Iligan Light and Power, Inc. (ILPI).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The Facts


The factual antecedents of this case are not disputed. They are related by the CA as follows: 5

". . . The members of the Association of Mindanao Industries are enterprises based in Mindanao and registered with the Board of Investments which were among those granted direct connection facility by the National Power Corporation although operating within the franchise area of private respondent Iligan Light and Power, Inc. (Iligan for short).

"On October 12, 1993, Iligan filed with the respondent Energy Regulatory Board (ERB for short) a petition for the implementation of the 1987 Cabinet Policy Reforms in the Power Sector, docketed as ERB-93-97, praying specifically that the direct supply of power to industries within its franchise area be discontinued by the National Power Corporation (NPC, for short).

"The Cabinet Policy Reforms referred to were among those approved by the President of the Philippines and her cabinet on January 21, 1987, the pertinent portion of which is quoted as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘2. Continue direct connections for industries authorized under the BOI-NPC Memorandum of Understanding of 12 January 1981, until such time as the appropriate regulatory board determines that direct connection of industry to NPC is no longer necessary in the franchise area of the specific utility or cooperative meeting standards of financial and technical capability, with satisfactory guarantees of non-prejudice to industry, to be set in consultation with NPC and relevant government agencies; and reviewed periodically by the regulatory board.’ . . .

"In its Petition, ILPI alleged, inter alia, that it can meet, even surpass, the set of financial standards adopted by the ERB pursuant to the policy guidelines set by the Cabinet . . .

"AMI filed its ‘Answer with Affirmative Defenses and/or Motion to Dismiss,’ ‘without accepting jurisdiction of the Honorable Board over the subject matter of the petition,’ on the following grounds, to wit: 1) lack of jurisdiction to hear the petition for implementation of Cabinet Policy Reforms in the Power Sector following the transfer of its non-price regulatory jurisdiction and functions to the Department of Energy under Rep. Act No. 7638; 2) the petition failed to state a cause of action for non-averment of petitioner’s ability and willingness to match the rates of NPC; and 3) non-joinder of indispensable parties . . .

"On January 4, 1994, the ERB denied in open court AMI’s motion to dismiss the petition. Likewise, AMI’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the ERB in its order dated April 7, 1994 . . . Hence, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the aforesaid order dated April 7, 1994 and to prohibit respondent ERB from proceeding with the hearing of ILPI’s petition."cralaw virtua1aw library

Ruling of the Court of Appeals


The appellate court justified its ruling in favor of private respondents in this wise: 6

"To resolve the issues raised in the case at bar, it is necessary to first characterize the petition filed by ILPI with the respondent [herein petitioner] ERB. It seems quite clear that ILPI sought therein to discontinue the direct supply of power by the NPC to BOI-registered enterprises operating within its (ILPI’s) franchise area. Although the petition is styled as one seeking the implementation of the Cabinet Policy Reforms in the Power Sector, the core of the action, as well as the ultimate relief sought, is related to the distribution or marketing of energy resources. The matter treated is thus not concerned with the fixing of power rates. Under the applicable provisions of law, the matter of direct supply of power, which is a ma[tt]er of energy distribution and which is undoubtedly a non-price regulatory matter, is among those granted to the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy under Republic Act No. 7638."cralaw virtua1aw library

The ERB and the ILPI filed their separate motions for reconsideration, which were, however, denied in the assailed November 19, 1996 Resolution of respondent court.

Hence, this petition. 7

Issues


Petitioner ILPI presents the following issues for resolution: 8

"I


"WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ERB HAS NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DECIDE CASES INVOLVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY REFORMS;

II


"WHETHER THE POLICY REFORMS COULD VALIDLY CONFER ON THE ERB THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THAT NPC DIRECT CONNECTIONS ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY;

III


"WHETHER THE DECISION IN THE NPC AND PHIVIDEC CASES IS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE."cralaw virtua1aw library

In sum, the pivotal issue in this case, as stated by Petitioner ERB, is "whether the ERB has jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving direct connection issues."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Court’s Ruling


The petition has failed to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals.

Main Issue: Jurisdiction

Petitioners submit that ERB’s jurisdiction to hear and decide cases on direct connection of power supply with the NPC was conferred by the January 23, 1987 Cabinet Memorandum approving a set of policy reforms in the power sector, specifically Item No. 2 thereof which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Continue direct connection for industries authorized under the BOI-NPC Memorandum of Understanding of 12 January 1981 until such time as the appropriate regulatory board determines that direct connection of industry to NPC is no longer necessary in the franchise area of the specific utility or cooperative. . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioners claim that RA 7638 transferred to the DOE the ERB’s non-price regulatory powers and functions relative to the petroleum industry only, as enumerated under Section 3 of Executive Order No. 172 (EO 172), which they quote as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 3. Jurisdiction, Powers and Functions of the Board. — [W]hen warranted and only when public necessity requires, the Board may regulate the business of importing, exporting, re-exporting, shipping, transporting, processing, refining, marketing and distributing energy resources. Energy resource means any substance or phenomenon which by itself or in combination with others, or after processing or refining or the application to it of technology, emanates, generates, or causes the emanation or generation of energy, such as but not limited to petroleum or petroleum products, coal, marsh gas, methane gas, geothermal and hydroelectric sources of energy, uranium and other similar radioactive materials, solar energy, tidal power, as well as non-conventional existing and potential sources.

"The Board shall, upon proper notice and hearing, exercise the following, among other powers and functions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) Fix and regulate the prices of petroleum products;

b) Fix and regulate the rate schedule or prices of piped gas to be charged by duly franchised gas companies which distribute gas by means of underground pipe system;

c) Fix and regulate the rates of pipeline concessionaires under the provisions of Republic Act No. 387, as amended, otherwise known as the "Petroleum Act of 1949", as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1700;

d) Regulate the capacities of new refineries that may be organized after the issuance of this Executive Order, under such terms and conditions as are consistent with the national interest;

e) Whenever the Board has determined that there is a shortage of any petroleum product, or when public interest so requires, it may take such steps as it may consider necessary, including the temporary adjustment of the levels of prices of petroleum products and the payment to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund created under Presidential Decree No. 1956 by persons or entities engaged in the petroleum industry of such amounts as may be determined by the Board, which will enable the importer to recover its cost of importation."cralaw virtua1aw library

While conceding that the regulation of the marketing and the distribution of energy resources has been expressly transferred to the DOE, petitioners contend, however, that electric power is not an energy resource. They allege that since the authority to pass upon issues of direct electric power connection was not mentioned at all in the above-quoted provision, it could not have been included among the functions given to the DOE.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Respondents, on the other hand, insist that jurisdiction over the connection issue in the case at bar now belongs to the DOE. In support of their stand, they cite the consolidated cases (1) National Power Corp. v. Court of Appeals and Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co. 9 and (2) Phividec Industrial Authority v. Court of Appeals and Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., 10 in which this Court stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The determination of which of the two public utilities has the right to supply electric power to an area which is within the coverage of both is certainly not a rate fixing function which should remain with ERB. It deals with the regulation of the distribution of energy resources which, under Executive Order No. 172, was expressly a function of ERB. However, with the enactment of Republic Act No. 7638, the Department of Energy took over such function. Hence, it is this Department which should then determine whether CEPALCO or PIA [Phividec Industrial Authority] should supply power to PIE-MO [Phividec Industrial Estate-Misamis Oriental]."cralaw virtua1aw library

Consequently, the Court disposed of the consolidated cases as follows: 11

"WHEREFORE, both petitions in G.R. No[s]. 112702 and 113613 are hereby DENIED. The Department of Energy is directed to conduct a hearing with utmost dispatch to determine whether it is the Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc. or the National Power Corporation, through the PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority, which should supply electric power to the industries in the PHIVIDEC Industrial Estate-Misamis Oriental."cralaw virtua1aw library

While the core question raised in these consolidated cases was whether the NPC could supply power directly to the PIE-MO area where CEPALCO had a franchise, we find the Court’s pronouncements on them relevant to the instant controversy. Corollary to the main question was the issue of whether the NPC had the power to hear and decide cases involving direct power connection. This Court held that "the NPC is not the proper authority . . ., not only because the subject matter of the hearing is a matter involving the NPC itself, but also because the law has created the proper administrative body vested with authority to conduct a hearing." 12 As to which was the "proper administrative body," the Court made the following illuminating disquisition: 13

"The ERB, which used to be the Board of Energy, is tasked with the following powers and functions by Executive Order No. 172 which took effect immediately after its issuance on May 8, 1987:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘SECTION 3. Jurisdiction, Powers and Functions of the Board. — When warranted and only when public necessity requires, the Board may regulate the business of importing, exporting, re-exporting, shipping, transporting, processing, refining, marketing and distributing energy resources . . .

‘The Board shall, upon proper notice and hearing, exercise the following, among other powers and functions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Fix and regulate the prices of petroleum products;

(b) Fix and regulate the rate schedule or prices of piped gas to be charged by duly franchised gas companies which distribute gas by means of underground pipe system;

(c) Fix and regulate the rates of pipeline concessionaires under the provisions of Republic Act No. 387, as amended, otherwise known as the ‘Petroleum Act of 1949,’ as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1700;

(d) Regulate the capacities of new refineries or additional capacities of existing refineries and license refineries that may be organized after the issuance of this Executive Order, under such terms and conditions as are consistent with the national interest;

(e) Whenever the Board has determined that there is a shortage of any petroleum product, or when public interest so requires, it may take such steps as it may consider necessary, including the temporary adjustment of the levels of prices of petroleum products and the payment to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund created under Presidential Decree No. 1956 by persons or entities engaged in the petroleum industry of such amounts as may be determined by the Board, which will enable the importer to recover its cost of importation.’

"As may be gleaned from said provisions, the ERB is basically a price or rate-fixing agency. Apparently recognizing this basic function, Republic Act No. 7638 (An Act Creating the Department of Energy, Rationalizing the Organization and Functions of Government Agencies Related to Energy, and for Other Purposes), which was approved on December 9, 1992 and which took effect fifteen days after its complete publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation, specifically provides as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘SECTION 18. Rationalization or Transfer of Functions of Attached or Related Agencies. — The non-price regulatory jurisdiction, powers, and functions of the Energy Regulatory Board as provided for in Section 3 of Executive Order No. 172 are hereby transferred to the Department.

‘The foregoing transfer of powers and functions shall include all applicable funds and appropriations, records, equipment, property, and such personnel as may be necessary. Provided, That only such amount of funds and appropriations of the Board as well as only the personnel thereof which are completely or primarily involved in the exercise by said Board of its non-price regulatory powers and functions shall be affected by such transfer.

‘The power of the NPC to determine, fix, and prescribe the rates being charged to its customers under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6395, as amended, as well as the power of electric cooperatives to fix rates under Section 16 (o), Chapter II of Presidential Decree No. 269, as amended, are hereby transferred to the Energy Regulatory Board. The Board shall exercise its new powers only after due notice and hearing and under the same procedure provided for in Executive Order No. 172.’

"Upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7638, then Acting Chairman of the Energy Coordinating Council Delfin Lazaro transmitted to the Department of Justice the query of whether or not the ‘non-power rate powers and functions’ of the ERB are included in the ‘jurisdiction, powers and functions transferred to the Department of Energy.’ Answering the query in the affirmative, the Department of Justice rendered Opinion No. 22 dated February 12, 1993 the pertinent portion of which states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘. . . we believe that since the provision of Section 18 on the transfer of certain powers and functions from ERB to DOE is clear and unequivocal, and devoid of any ambiguity, in the sense that it categorically refers to ‘non-price jurisdiction, powers and functions’ of ERB under Section 3 of E.O. No. 172, there is no room for interpretation, but only for application, of the law. This is a cardinal rule of statutory construction.

‘Clearly, the parameters of the transfer of functions from ERB to DOE pursuant to Section 18, are circumscribed by the provision of Section 3 of E.O. No. 172 alone, so that, If there are other ‘related’ functions of ERB under other provisions of E.O. No. 172 or other energy laws, these ‘related’ functions, which may conceivably refer to what you call ‘non-power rate powers and functions’ of ERB, are clearly not contemplated by Section 18 and are, therefore, not to be deemed included in the transfer of functions from ERB to DOE under the said provision.

‘It may be argued that Section 26 of R.A. No. 7638 contains a repealing clause which provides that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. . .’

and, therefore, all provisions of E.O. No. 172 and related laws which are inconsistent with the policy, purpose and intent of R.A. No. 7638 are deemed repealed. It has been said, however, that a general repealing clause of such nature does not operate as an express repeal because it fails to identify or designate the act or acts that are intended to be repealed. Rather, it is a clause which predicates the intended repeal upon the condition that a substantial conflict must be found[ed] on existing and prior acts of the same subject matter. Such being the case, the presumption against implied repeals and the rule on strict construction regarding implied repeals shall apply ex proprio vigore. For the legislature is presumed to know the existing laws so that, if repeal of particular or specific laws is intended, the proper step is to so express it. The failure to add a specific repealing clause particularly mentioning the statute to be repealed indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law on the matter, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and the old laws (Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc. v. Feliciano, 13 SCRA 377; City of Naga v. Agna, 71 SCRA 176, cited in Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 1990 Edition, pp. 191-192).

‘In view of the foregoing, it is our opinion that only the non-price regulatory functions of ERB under Section 3 of E.O. 172 are transferred to the DOE. All the powers of ERB which are not within the purview of its ‘non-price regulatory jurisdiction, powers and functions’ as defined in Section 3 are not so transferred to DOE and accordingly remain vested in ERB.’

"The determination of which of two public utilities has the right to supply electric power to an area which is within the coverage of both is certainly not a rate-fixing function which should remain with the ERB. It deals with the regulation of the distribution of energy resources which, under Executive Order No. 172, was expressly a function of ERB. However, with the enactment of Republic Act No. 7638, the Department of Energy took over such function. Hence, it is this Department which shall then determine whether CEPALCO or PIA should supply power to PIE-MO."cralaw virtua1aw library

The foregoing sufficiently indicates that it is now the Department of Energy that has jurisdiction over the regulation of the marketing and the distribution of energy resources. It may be true that this function formerly belonged to the ERB, by virtue of the "Cabinet Policy Reforms in the Energy Sector" embodied in the Cabinet Memorandum of January 23, 1987, and EO 172 issued May 8, 1987. However, pursuant to Section 18 of RA 7638, which was subsequently enacted by Congress on December 9, 1992, the non-rate-fixing jurisdiction, powers and functions of the ERB have been transferred to the Department of Energy. The applications for the NPC’s direct supply or disconnection of power involve essentially the distribution of energy resources, not by any incident the determination of power rates. Consequently, these applications must be resolved by the DOE.

It is of no moment that the petition instituted by ILPI before the ERB was captioned "for the Implementation of the 1987 Cabinet Policy Reforms in the Power Sector." The relief it specifically sought was the discontinuation of NPC’s direct supply of power to private respondent’s member-companies. Definitely then, the distribution of an energy resource was its main purpose.

Neither does the Court agree with the petitioners’ claim that the regulatory functions of the ERB that were transferred to the DOE concerned those relating to the petroleum industry only and not to electric power. Section 3 of EO 172 broadly defines energy resource as "any substance or phenomenon which by itself or in combination with others emanates, [or] generates energy," Electric power or electricity has been in turn defined as "an imponderable and invisible agent producing light, heat, chemical decomposition, and other physical phenomena." 14 Undoubtedly, electricity produces or generates energy. By simple logic, it is an energy resource. The regulation of its distribution is, therefore, among those functions formerly belonging to the ERB, which have been transferred to the DOE as expressly directed in Section 18 of RA 7638. Nowhere in this provision is there any restriction of its scope to petroleum and its products only. The reference to petroleum is merely by way of example of what an energy resource is. In fact, the set of examples of energy resources enumerated in the law is prefaced with "such as but not limited to." This can only mean that the enumeration is nonrestrictive.

Moreover, Section 5 of RA 7638 defines the powers and functions of the DOE as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 5. Powers and Functions. — The Department shall have the following powers and functions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(d) Exercise supervision and control over all government activities relative to energy projects in order to attain the goods embodied in Section 2 of this Act.

(e) Regulate private sector activities relative to energy projects as provided for under existing laws; Provided, That the Department shall endeavor to provide for an environment conducive to free and active private sector participation and involvement in all energy activities."cralaw virtua1aw library

As to what energy projects encompass, Section 3 of the same law gives this definition:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. — (a) ‘Energy projects’ shall mean activities or projects relative to the exploration, extraction, production, importation-exportation, processing, transportation, marketing, distribution, utilization, conservation, stockpiling or storage of all forms of energy products and resources." (Emphasis supplied.)

Definitely, the exploration, the production, the marketing, the distribution, the utilization, or any other activity involving any energy resource or product falls within the supervision and control of the DOE.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Vitug, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 93-109.

2. Ibid., pp. 111-113.

3. Seventh Division, composed of JJ . Fermin A. Martin Jr., ponente; Antonio M. Martinez, chairman (now a retired justice of the Supreme Court); and Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, member.

4. Rollo, pp. 108-109.

5. Assailed Decision, pp. 2-3; ibid., pp. 94-95.

6. Assailed Decision, p. 4.

7. This case was deemed submitted for resolution upon receipt by this Court of Petitioner ILPI’s Memorandum on November 24, 1998.

8. Petitioner ILPI’s Memorandum, pp. 3-4.

9. GR No. 112702, 279 SCRA 506, September 26, 1997, per Romero, J .

10. GR No. 113613, ibid.

11. Ibid., p. 531.

12. Ibid., p. 526.

13. Ibid., pp. 526-530.

14. 29 CJS 859, citing US v. City and County of San Francisco, D.C. Cal., 23 F. Supp. 40, 52.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 99266 March 2, 1998 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117105 March 2, 1998 - TIMES TRANSIT CREDIT COOP. INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124320 March 2, 1998 - HEIRS OF GUIDO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL. v. ROY S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125138 March 2, 1998 - NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125683 March 2, 1998 - EDEN BALLATAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126134 March 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOVEN DE LA CUESTA

  • G.R. No. 131047 March 2, 1998 - TOYOTA AUTOPARTS, PHILS., INC. v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1178 March 3, 1998 - COMELEC v. BUCO R. DATU-IMAN

  • A.M. No. P-94-1107 March 3, 1998 - CARMELINA CENIZA-GUEVARRA v. CELERINA R. MAGBANUA

  • G.R. No. 93090 March 3, 1998 - ROMEO CABELLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127575 March 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO CANTERE

  • G.R. No. 127801 March 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL YU VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 130347 March 3, 1998 - ABELARDO VALARAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134096 March 3, 1998 - JOSEPH PETER S. SISON v. COMELEC

  • A.M. No. P-99-1286 March 4, 1998 - CONCEPCION L. JEREZ v. ARTURO A. PANINSURO

  • G.R. No. 108027 March 4, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA M. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 111676 March 4, 1998 - SILVINA TORRES VDA. DE CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117213 March 4, 1998 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN v. MARIANO ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122539 March 4, 1998 - JESUS V. TIOMICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123936 March 4, 1998 - RONALD SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132648 March 4, 1998 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133563 March 4, 1998 - BRIDGET BONENG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 123792 March 8, 1998 - MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125537 March 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE MAGLANTAY

  • A.C. CBD No. 167 March 9, 1998 - PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES v. DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1175 March 9, 1998 - VICTORINO CRUZ v. REYNOLD Q. YANEZA

  • G.R. No. 108532 March 9, 1998 - PABLITO TANEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115741 March 9, 1998 - HEIRS OF JOAQUIN ASUNCION v. MARGARITO GERVACIO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121587 March 9, 1998 - SOLEDAD DY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126123 March 9, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO PLATILLA

  • G.R. No. 128721 March 9, 1998 - CRISMINA GARMENTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-94-1106 March 10, 1998 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO v. ROLANDO G. LEYVA

  • Adm. Matters No. RTJ-98-1423 March 10, 1998 - ROMAN CAGATIN, ET AL. v. LEONARDO N. DEMECILLO

  • G.R. No. 95815 March 10, 1998 - SERVANDO MANGAHAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120163 March 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATUKON BANSIL

  • G.R. No. 120971 March 10, 1998 - TAGGAT INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123426 March 10, 1998 - NAT’L. FEDERATION OF LABOR v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 126874 March 10, 1998 - GSIS v. ANTONIO P. OLISA

  • G.R. No. 127123 March 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH LAKINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 129442 March 10, 1998 - FEDERICO PALLADA, ET AL. v. RTC OF KALIBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129824 March 10, 1998 - DE PAUL/KING PHILIP CUSTOMS TAILOR, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1293 March 11, 1998 - EMILIO DILAN, ET AL. v. JUAN R. DULFO

  • G.R. No. 95326 March 11, 1998 - ROMEO P. BUSUEGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106518 March 11, 1998 - ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108440-42 March 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 109721 March 11, 1998 - FELIX A. SAJOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109979 March 11, 1998 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119157 March 11, 1998 - GOLDEN THREAD KNITTING INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125590 March 11, 1998 - BIOMIE S. OCHAGABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127004 March 11, 1998 - NAT’L. STEEL CORP. v. RTC OF LANAO DEL NORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127663 March 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132250 March 11, 1998 - ROSALIA P. SALVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 123982 March 15, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO K. JOYNO

  • G.R. No. 134188 March 15, 1998 - NUR G. JAAFAR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61508 March 17, 1998 - CITIBANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111704 March 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 115693 March 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVERIANO BOTONA

  • G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1998 - EULALIA RUSSELL, ET AL. v. AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120751 March 17, 1998 - PHIMCO INDUSTRIES v. JOSE BRILLANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125311 March 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONYOT MAHINAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129695 March 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO TABONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130380 March 17, 1998 - HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO BLANCAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115006 March 18, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 119756 March 18, 1998 - FORTUNE EXPRESS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127542 March 18, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHENG HO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 128682 March 18, 1998 - JOAQUIN T. SERVIDAD v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 97-6-182-RTC March 19, 1998 - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC, BRANCH 68

  • G.R. No. 96262 March 22, 1998 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. EMBROIDERY AND GARMENTS INDUSTRIES (PHIL.)

  • G.R. No. 116738 March 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO DOMOGOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126286 March 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER VAYNACO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126714 March 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 127523 March 22, 1998 - LEONCIA ALIPOON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1296 March 25, 1998 - DANIEL CRUZ v. CLERK OF COURT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1297 March 25, 1998 - LUDIVINA MARISGA-MAGBANUA v. EMILIO T. VILLAMAR V

  • G.R. No. 96740 March 25, 1998 - VIRGINIA P. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103953 March 25, 1998 - SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG KAPDULA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112088 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO ALMADEN

  • G.R. Nos. 116741-43 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MONTEFALCON

  • G.R. No. 117154 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO A. BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. 119172 March 25, 1998 - BELEN C. FIGUERRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120505 March 25, 1998 - AIUP, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122966-67 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR S. ALOJADO

  • G.R. No. 123160 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BATION

  • G.R. No. 124300 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENANTE ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 125053 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRISTOPHER CAÑA LEONOR

  • G.R. Nos. 126183 & 129221 March 25, 1998 - LUZVIMINDA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126916 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLINO BACONG MANAGAYTAY

  • G.R. No 127373 March 25, 1998 - ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127662 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO V. ERIBAL

  • G.R. No. 127708 March 25, 1998 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN PABLO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO V. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128386 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUDITO ALQUIZALAS

  • G.R. No. 130491 March 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MENGOTE

  • G.R. No. 130872 March 25, 1998 - FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131108 March 25, 1998 - ASIAN ALCOHOL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132980 March 25, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GLADYS C. LABRADOR

  • G.R. No. 133107 March 25, 1998 - RCBC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1082 & 98-10-135-MCTC March 29, 1998 - MARCELO CUEVA v. OLIVER T. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P-94-1015 March 29, 1998 - JASMIN MAGUAD, ET AL. v. NICOLAS DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93291 March 29, 1998 - SULPICIO LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113150 March 29, 1998 - HENRY TANCHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122827 March 29, 1998 - LIDUVINO M. MILLARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125129 March 29, 1998 - JOSEPH H. REYES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 129058 March 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO SEVILLENO

  • G.R. No. 131124 March 29, 1998 - OSMUNDO G. UMALI v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123540 March 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN AYO