Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > July 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 126947 July 15, 1999 - HARRY ANG PING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 126947. July 15, 1999.]

HARRY ANG PING, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RTC-MAKATI, BRANCH 149 AND UNI-BANCARD CORPORATION, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


ROMERO, J.:


Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision 1 of the Eleventh Division of the Court of Appeals dated June 14, 1996 dismissing petitioner’s prayer for annulment of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Makati Branch 149 in Civil Case No. 18843 entitled "Unibancard Corporation v. Tiongson and Ang Ping." Likewise under review is the Court of Appeals’ Resolution 2 dated September 16, 1996 denying the petitioner’s motion for re-consideration.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The antecedent facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In April 1987, Juan Tiongson applied for and was issued a Unicard credit card by respondent Corporation with petitioner Harry Ang Ping as co-obligor. As part of the terms and conditions governing the issuance and use of the credit card, Tingson and Ang Ping agreed to jointly and severally pay Unibancard all purchases and charges made through the said credit card within twenty (20) days from receipt of the monthly statement without necessity of demand. Tingson and Ang Ping likewise bound themselves to pay interest and penalty fees on any unpaid balance and attorney’s fees in case of suit.

Tingson defaulted on his monthly charges which amounted to P49,988.42 as of December 5, 1987 and despite repeated demands, failed or refused to settle his accounts with respondent Corporation prompting the latter to file a collection suit with the Regional Trial Court of Makati.

The summonses for both Tingson and Ang Ping were allegedly served on February 15, 1988 at 189 I. Lopez St., Mandaluyong Metro Manila and 34 Coolidge St., Greenhills West, San Juan, Metro Manila, respectively. In both cases, the person who received the summons was a certain Jonas Umali.

On May 12, 1988, a certain Atty. Benito Salazar filed an answer purportedly on behalf of defendants Tingson and Ang Ping, denying the substantial averments in the complaint and alleging inter alia that the unpaid charges were much less than P49,988.42 and that no proper demand was made on the defendants. At the pre-trial, on the other hand, a certain Atty. Lauro Sandoval represented Tingson and herein petitioner. Later, during trial, defendant’s counsel did not present any evidence on their behalf; hence, the trial court deemed that the defendants had waived their right to present evidence and submitted the case for decision on the basis solely of the respondent Corporation’s evidence.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The trial court rendered judgment on June 11, 1990, holding Tingson and Ang Ping jointly and severally liable for "the sum of P35,233.62 plus 3% interest and 5% penalty charge from August 3, 1987 until the entire amount is fully paid" plus 25% attorney’s fees. 3

A writ of execution was subsequently issued and the same was enforced on May 3, 1993 at Ang Ping’s Greenhills address where Ruth Ang Ping, petitioner’s sister, informed the sheriff that petitioner was no longer residing at the said address. The writ was later returned unsatisfied since a third party claim over the properties attached was filed and successfully proven. Thereafter, on November 5, 1993 and on motion of respondent Corporation, an alias writ of execution was issued and a notice of garnishment was served on San Lorenzo Bus Service Co. covering shares believed to be owned by Ang Ping. Another alias writ of execution was issued on August 29, 1994 by virtue of which, the sheriff levied on certain personal properties found inside Harrod’s Haberdashery at SM Megamall, the Certificate of Business Name of which was issued to herein petitioner. During the enforcement of the writ on September 15, 1994, Ang Ping tried to stop the sheriff from carrying away personalty from the establishment and a scuffle between them ensued. The records show that the petitioner grabbed the sheriff by the neck while pulling him to the door, causing injury to the latter.

On October 27, 1994, Ang Ping filed with the Court of Appeals a petition 4 to annul the judgment of the trial court which was the basis of the various writs of execution issued against him. He alleged that the judgment in question was rendered without due process of law as he was not given his day in court. Petitioner argued that since there was no valid service of summons upon him and he never appeared before the court by himself or by counsel, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over his person, thus, the judgment cannot be enforced against him.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition after finding that petitioner Ang Ping was properly placed under the jurisdiction of the trial court which rendered the assailed judgment. First, the appellate court said, the petitioner was duly represented by counsel who, aside from filing a responsive pleading, had religiously appeared for him and his co-defendant before the lower court and petitioner’s claim that said counsel was not duly authorized by him was never satisfactorily substantiated. Second, respondent Court noted that there was a valid service of summons on petitioner Ang Ping because the copy of the summons addressed to him was signed by a certain Jonas Umali. The Court of Appeals likewise pointed out that the delay in filing the petition to nullify the judgment of the lower court buttressed private respondent’s contention that the same was just a ploy resorted to by petitioner to stymie the enforcement of the alias writ of execution issued against him.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner insists that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over his person since he was never validly served with summons and neither did he appear in court. In particular, he assails the substituted service resorted to by the process server on the ground that he never actually received the summons. He pointed to the irregularities in the conduct of the substituted service of summons such as: the fact that the same person, a certain Jonas Umali, received the summonses for both Tingson and petitioner Ang Ping on the same date at different addresses and the failure of the process server to file the proof of service together with the return thus dispensing with the explanation as to why substituted service was resorted to. He further claims that he never authorized the lawyers who filed an answer and appeared in court purportedly in his behalf.

In its comment, private respondent Corporation, on the other hand, prayed for the dismissal of the present petition reiterating that the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Ang Ping.

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is acquired either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons. 5 In this case, the records show that the summons addressed to petitioner Ang Ping was delivered by substituted service, with a certain Jonas Umali signing as the one who received the summons. As correctly pointed out by the petitioner, however, there was no explanation in the proof of service justifying the resort to substituted service. In fact, the records are bereft of any showing that a proof of service was even filed after such substituted service.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Well settled is the rule that summons must be served upon the defendant himself. It is only when the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time that substituted service may be resorted to and such impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating that efforts have been made to find the defendant personally and that such efforts have failed. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary in character and hence may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. The statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any substituted service other than that authorized by statute is considered ineffective. 6

It should be emphasized that the service of summons is not only required to give the court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also to afford the latter an opportunity to be heard on the claim made against him. 7 Thus, compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much an issue of due process as of jurisdiction.

Moreover, as likewise pointed out by the petitioner, the presumption of regularity in the performance of public functions finds no application in the case at bar. Surely, there must be, at the very least, compliance with the procedure outlined in Sections 6 and 20 of Rule 14 of the rules of civil procedure then applicable (now Sections 4 and 18, Rule 14 of the new rules), to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 6. Return. — When the service has been completed, the server shall give notice thereof, by registered mail, to plaintiff or his counsel, and shall return the summons to the clerk who issued it, accompanied with the proof of service.

SECTION 20. Proof of Service. — The proof of service of summons shall be made in writing by the server and shall set forth the manner, place, and date of service; shall specify any papers which have been served with the process and the name of the person who received the same; and shall be sworn to when made by a person other than a sheriff or his deputy.

A cursory examination of the records shows that the process server did not file any proof of service in Civil Case No. 18843. In this case, since substituted service was resorted to, there should have been a report indicating that the person who received the summons in Ang Ping’s behalf was one with whom petitioner had a relation of confidence that would ensure that the latter will receive or be notified of the summons issued in his name. Certainly, it was never intended that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty will be applied even in cases where there is no showing of substantial compliance with the requirements of the rules of procedure. This is all the more so in the present case where the duty to be performed has a direct bearing on the acquisition of jurisdiction of the trial court over the person of the defendant.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

As regards the alleged appearance of a lawyer in behalf of the petitioner during the proceedings in the trial court, the same cannot be considered as the voluntary appearance contemplated by the rules. In the first place, the records are bereft of any showing that petitioner Ang Ping personally appeared at any stage in the proceedings of the trial court. Second, no document vesting authority in the lawyer who purportedly represented him appears on record. At the pre-trial, for instance, Atty. Sandoval who claimed to be the counsel for the defendants did not present any special power of attorney executed by the petitioner herein. The rules require that the party-litigant himself must appear for pre-trial but if he chooses to be represented thereat, he should grant a special power of attorney to his counsel or representative. Thus, Section 4 of Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 4. Appearance of parties. — It shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents.

Although the proceedings in the trial court were conducted under the old rules of civil procedure, the same procedural requirement applies to the case at bar since well settled is the rule that remedial rules have retroactive application. In any case, the aforecited new rule is merely a crystallization of a procedure long established by jurisprudence and practice.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

With respect to the appellate court’s holding that because of petitioner’s delay in filing the petition for annulment of judgment, he is deemed to have forfeited his opportunity to present his side, it is enough to say that where the ground invoked as basis for annulment of judgment is lack of jurisdiction, the petition may be filed anytime before it is barred by estoppel or laches, 8 neither of which obtains in the present case. As held by this Court before, it is the better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations of the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result. 9

All told, the judgment sought to be executed against Ang Ping was indeed rendered without jurisdiction as he was not properly served with summons and neither did he voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the trial court. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of his defense. 10 It is elementary that before a person can be deprived of his property, he should first be informed of the claim against him and the theory on which such claim is premised. 11 Not having been duly accorded his day in court, petitioner cannot thus be bound by the judgment in the collection suit.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED. Accordingly, the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 18843 is SET ASIDE as to herein petitioner Ang Ping. No costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Gonzaga-Reyes, J., took no part; signatory to CA decision.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 39-57.

2. ibid., p. 59.

3. Ibid., pp. 71-72.

4. Ibid., pp. 82-100.

5. Avon Insurance PLC v. CA, 278 SCRA 312 (1997).

6. Keister v. Navarro, 77 SCRA 209 (1977).

7. id.

8. Section 3, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

9. Santiago v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 98 (1997).

10. Salonga v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 534 (1997).

11. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 266 SCRA 515 (1997).




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





July-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 104600 July 2, 1999 - RILLORAZA ET AL. v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILS., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109493 July 2, 1999 - SERAFIN AQUINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116151 July 2, 1999 - ESTER JANE VIRGINIA F. ALMORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119398 July 2, 1999 - EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120642 July 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE REYES and NESTOR PAGAL

  • G.R. No. 124765 July 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ERNESTO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 125498 July 2, 1999 - CONRADO B. RODRIGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 126044-45 July 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NONOY DIZON

  • G.R. No. 126950 July 2, 1999 - NELSON NUFABLE, ET AL. v. GENEROSA NUFABLE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 129120 July 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134090 July 2, 1999 - ERNESTO R. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134503 July 2, 1999 - JASPER AGBAY v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312 July 5, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUSTOM BERMAS and GALMA ARCILLA

  • G.R. No. 97347 July 6, 1999 - JAIME G. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110085 July 6, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES R. MACUHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121662-64 July 6, 1999 - VLASON ENTERPRISES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 127125 & 138952 July 6, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX PANIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131618 July 6, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR MANGAT Y PALOMATA

  • G.R. No. 134826 July 6, 1999 - RENE CORDERO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119942 July 8, 1999 - FELIPE E. PEPITO ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121176 July 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON PARAZO

  • G.R. No. 126258 July 8, 1999 - TALSAN ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. BALIWAG TRANSIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128875 July 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO NUÑEZ Y DUBDUBAN

  • G.R. No. 122917 July 12, 1999 - MARITES BERNARDO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-98-1267 July 13, 1999 - ALFREDO S. CAIN v. EVELYN R. NERI

  • AM No. RTJ-99-1455 July 13, 1999 - REYNALDO DE VERA v. SANCHO A. DAMES II

  • G.R. No. 120160 July 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ATREJENIO y LIBANAN

  • G.R. No. 128074 July 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISA ABDUL ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104302 July 14, 1999 - REBECCA R. VELOSO v. CHINA AIRLINES LTD.

  • G.R. No. 106435 July 14, 1999 - PAMECA WOOD TREATMENT PLANT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123646 July 14, 1999 - NAZARIO C. AUSTRIA v. NLRC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 124873 July 14, 1999 - UNITED BF HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION v. BF HOMES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 130381 July 14, 1999 - FRANCISCO HERRERA v. PATERNO CANLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130636 July 14, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO QUIBOYEN

  • G.R. No. 126947 July 15, 1999 - HARRY ANG PING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133215 July 15, 1999 - PAGPALAIN HAULERS v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137796 July 15, 1999 - MONDRAGON LEISURE AND RESORTS CORP, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110086 July 19, 1999 - PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120972 July 19, 1999 - JOSE AGUILAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121315 & 122136 July 19, 1999 - COMPLEX ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CEEA) v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123143 July 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL TADEJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 123550-51 July 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO AQUINO Y CALOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127005 July 19, 1999 - JOSE ROSARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127485 July 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO RAMILLA

  • G.R. No. 131522 July 19, 1999 - PACITA I. HABANA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD C. ROBLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134015 July 19, 1999 - JUAN DOMINO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134998 July 19, 1999 - SILVESTRE TIU v. DANIEL MIDDLETON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 95-11-P July 20, 1999 - ELEONOR T.F. MARBAS-VIZCARRA v. GREGORIA R. FLORENDO

  • A.M. No. 99-5-26-SC July 20, 1999 - RE: DONATION BY THE PROVINCE OF BILIRAN

  • A.M. No. 99-7-07-SC July 20, 1999 - RESOLUTION PRESCRIBING GUIDELINES FOR QUALIFYING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE

  • G.R. No. 100789 July 20, 1999 - AUGUSTO A. CAMARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103547 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 110798 July 20, 1999 - ODELON T. BUSCAINO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 112963 July 20, 1999 - PHIL. WIRELESS INC. (Pocketbell), ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120236 July 20, 1999 - E.G.V. REALTY DEV’T. CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122122 July 20, 1999 - PHIL. FRUIT & VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123010 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGED T. GHARBIA

  • G.R. No. 124032 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONTGOMERY VIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127122 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO LOSANO

  • G.R. No. 127574 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SUGANO

  • G.R. No. 128286 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT BASAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128839 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO TEVES

  • G.R. No. 129535 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CALIXTO RECONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130372 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUIAMAD MANTUNG

  • G.R. No. 131099 July 20, 1999 - DOMINGO CELENDRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131405 July 20, 1999 - LEILANI MENDOZA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134213 July 20, 1999 - ROMEO J. GAMBOA, JR. v. MARCELO AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111762 July 22, 1999 - ROY A. DIZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121038 July 22, 1999 - TEOTIMO EDUARTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 122947 July 22, 1999 - TIMOTEO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123926 July 22, 1999 - ROGELIO MARISCAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129254 July 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO JANAIRO

  • G.R. No. 129112 July 23, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MIJANO

  • A.M. No. 98-12-377-RTC July 26, 1999 - RE: CASES LEFT UNDECIDED BY JUDGE SEGUNDO B. CATRAL

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1464 July 26, 1999 - EUSEBIO GO, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN A. BONGOLAN

  • G.R. No. 120998 July 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONEL MEREN

  • G.R. No. 126096 July 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO SANDRIAS JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 126745 July 26, 1999 - AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130092 July 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BRANDARES

  • G.R. No. 130546 July 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON FLORES

  • G.R. No. 125539 July 27, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO PATALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132242 July 27, 1999 - ROBERTO S. ALBERTO v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 137718 July 27, 1999 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-98-1264 July 28, 1999 - BASILIO P. MAMANTEO v. MANUEL M. MAGUMUN

  • SB-99-9-J July 28, 1999 - JEWEL F. CANSON v. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76272 July 28, 1999 - JARDINE DAVIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76340-41 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107746 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO MORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110001 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELMER HEREDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118312-13 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO PINEDA

  • G.R. No. 118777 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO MANGAHAS

  • G.R. No. 122453 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY REYES

  • G.R. No. 122627 July 28, 1999 - WILSON ABA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124452 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO TAMBIS

  • G.R. No. 124823 July 28, 1999 - PASVIL/PASCUAL LINER v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125086 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MILAN and VIRGILIO MILAN

  • G.R. No. 125550 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDIGARIO CANDELARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126650 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMARJONEL FRANCISCO TOMOLIN

  • G.R. No. 127937 July 28, 1999 - NAT’L. TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129051 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO MOLINA

  • G.R. No. 130334 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO POÑADO

  • G.R. No. 130507 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 130654 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO BASIN JAVIER

  • G.R. Nos. 131149-50 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO DIAZ y DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 133186 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL YABUT

  • G.R. No. 135150 July 28, 1999 - ROMEO LONZANIDA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136351 July 28, 1999 - JOEL G. MIRANDA v. ANTONIO M. ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137149 July 28, 1999 - ISMAEL A. MATHAY v. FELT FOODS

  • G.R. No. 123544 July 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL BERANA

  • G.R. No. 129289 July 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CARULLO

  • G.R. No. 130681 July 29, 1999 - JOSE V. LORETO v. RENATO BRION, ET AL.