Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > March 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 129442 March 10, 1999 - FEDERICO PALLADA, ET AL. v. RTC OF KALIBO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 129442. March 10, 1999.]

FEDERICO PALLADA, PACIFICO PALLADA, LOURDES PALLADA and CONSOLACION PALLADA DELGADO, assisted by her husband, RIZAL DELGADO, PURIFICACION PALLADA, LOVELLA DELA CRUZ, DIOCESS PALLADA, NORBERTO PALLADA, and DELFA PALLADA, Petitioners, v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF KALIBO, AKLAN, BRANCH 1, SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN OR ANY OF HIS DEPUTIES, SPOUSES MELDA MERCEDITO NATAL and CRESENCIO NATAL, SPOUSES EDITHA MERCEDITA SONGCANG, SPOUSES ELMA MERECEDIO SAPINIT and ERNESTO SAPINIT, SPOUSES WENINA MERECEDIO LIM and CONSEI LIM, SPOUSES CELMENCIA MATIONG SAN MIGUEL and APOLINARIO SAN MIGUEL, SPOUSES MERCEDES MATIONG TOLENTINO and ENRIQUITO TOLENTINO, SPOUSES GLORIA PASTOR and HELDERICO PASTOR, RENEE MERECEDIO, FIDELINO MERECEDIO, RUSTICO MATIONG, SALVADOR MATIONG, JR., and ARTURO MATIONG, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


PURISIMA, J.:


At bar is a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction assailing the validity, and seeking non-implementation of the Writ of Execution issued on May 2, 1997 in Civil Case No. 2519 before Branch 1 of the Regional Trial Court in Kalibo, Aklan.

The facts that matter are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On September 29, 1976, private respondents commenced Civil Case No. 2519 for recovery of possession and ownership of land with damages before Branch 1 of the Regional Trial Court in Kalibo, Aklan ("RTC-Aklan").

On January 31, 1991, RTC-Aklan declared the defendants, petitioners herein, as the absolute and lawful owners and possessors of subject land; disposing, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring defendants the absolute and lawful owners and possessors of the lot in question as against the plaintiffs.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED." 1

Private respondents appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the same; disposing as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appeal is GRANTED, the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and a new decision rendered in favor of herein appellants declaring them as the possessors and lawful owners of the remaining portion of the unsold land (1,0391 hectares more or less) covered by Tax Declaration No. 10336 (Exh "G").chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Defendants-appellees are hereby ordered to restore possession of said land to plaintiffs-appellants herein.

Defendants-appellees are likewise ordered to pay jointly and severally plaintiffs-appellants the value of the produce of the land, the same to be computed from 1976, at the time of the filing of the complaint until fully paid.

Costs is charged against defendants-appellees.

SO ORDERED." 2

Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was to no avail. It was denied in the Resolution 3 dated July 18, 1996 of the Court of Appeals.

Undaunted, petitioners found their way to this court via the Petition for Review on Certiorari under consideration, docketed as G.R. No. 126112. But the same was denied in the Resolution 4 of November 18, 1996, which disposition became final and executory 5 on January 22, 1997.

On May 13, 1997, the private respondents filed an Ex Parte Motion for Execution 6 with RTC-Aklan, which granted the said motion.

The respondent court then issued the Writ of Execution 7 dated May 2, 1997 (private respondents claim that the same is erroneous as its date should have been June 2, 1997) directing the Sheriff of the Province of Aklan or any of his deputies to implement subject Decision, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"NOW, THEREFORE, upon payment of your lawful fees, you are hereby ordered to enforce, implement and/or execute the aforesaid decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on March 29, 1996, which REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision appealed from and a new decision rendered in favor of herein plaintiffs-appellants having been DISMISSED by the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated November 18, 1996.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

You are further commanded to collect from the defendants jointly and severally, the value of the produce of the land, the same to be computed from 1976, at the time of the filing of the complaint until fully paid, and tender the same to the plaintiffs.

In case you fail to collect the amount in cash, then you may levy upon the chattels and other personal properties of the defendants. But if sufficient personal properties cannot be found to satisfy this execution, and your lawful fees thereon, then you are commanded that of the lands and buildings of said defendants, you make the said sum of money in the manner required by law and the Rules of Court and return this writ unto this Court within SIXTY (60) days from receipt with your corresponding report of the proceedings undertaken thereon."cralaw virtua1aw library

Execution was partially satisfied, as shown in the Officer’s Return of Service 8 of June 20, 1997.

With the issuance of the Writ of Execution under attack, petitioners have come to this Court for relief, theorizing that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


PETITIONERS ARE NOT BOUND BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR COUNSEL WHO LEFT THE COUNTRY WITHOUT INFORMING THEM THEREOF, NOR BRIEFING THEM OF THE STATUS OF THEIR CASE.

II


THE WRIT OF EXECUTION IS INVALID FOR PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ EX-PARTE MOTION FOR EXECUTION WAS GRANTED WITHOUT NOTICE TO PETITIONERS.

III


THE PETITIONERS’ CASE IS MERITORIOUS.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On the first issue, petitioners maintain that before their petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 126112, was resolved by this Court, their lawyer went abroad without informing them and without briefing them on the status of the petition. According to petitioners, it was only on June 16, 1997 that they learned that their petition was dismissed. It is therefore petitioners’ stance that they lost the said case before this Court due to the negligence of their lawyer which should not bind them.

Petitioners’ contention is untenable. The negligence of counsel binds the client 9 just as the latter is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer 10 . Besides, petitioners are not entirely blameless for the dismissal of their petition. It was their duty as litigants to keep in constant touch with their counsel so as to be posted on the status of their case. As held in Ramones v. National Labor Relations Commission 11 ," [a] prudent man would have taken steps to ensure that, if and when his counsel would leave for abroad . . ., any case that his counsel is handling would be handled by a collaborating counsel or by a new counsel."cralaw virtua1aw library

Here, petitioners have no proof other than their bare allegation, that they were unaware of the departure of their lawyer for abroad.

Even assuming arguendo that petitioners’ counsel was negligent, their Petition in G.R. No. 126112 would fail just the same, for as held by the Court in its Resolution of November 18, 1996, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in its questioned judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At any rate, even if the said requirement were complied with and the petition were filed on time, the same would nevertheless be dismissed for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in the questioned judgment." 12

Anent the second error, there is tenability in petitioners’ contention that the Writ of Execution was irregularly issued insofar as the Ex-Parte Motion for Execution of private respondents did not contain a notice of hearing to petitioners. Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, read:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

"SECTION 4. Notice. — Notice of a motion shall be served by the applicant to all parties concerned, at least three (3) days before the hearing thereof, together with a copy of the motion, and of any affidavit and other papers accompanying it. The court, however, for good cause may hear a motion on shorter notice, specially on matters which the court may dispose of on its own motion."cralaw virtua1aw library

"SECTION 5. Contents of notice. — The notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion."cralaw virtua1aw library

The foregoing requirements — that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion — are mandatory, and if not religiously complied with, the motion becomes pro forma 13 . A motion that does not comply with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is a worthless piece of paper which the clerk of court has no right to receive and which the court has no authority to act upon 14

Under Supreme Court Circular No. 24-94, a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution must contain a notice to the adverse party —

"Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.

If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, such execution may forthwith be applied for in the lower court from which the action originated, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or the final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.

The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution." (Emphasis supplied)chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

It bears stressing that a similar provision is found in Section 1 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court.

The Court is not prepared, however, to invalidate the Writ of Execution issued below. The petition is obviously a dilatory move on the part of petitioners, designed to prevent the final disposition of the case. In People v. Leviste 15 , it was held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"While it is true that any motion that does not comply with the requirements of Rule 15 should not be accepted for filing and, if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance, this Court has likewise held that where a rigid application of the rule will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, technicalities may be disregarded in order to resolve the case. Litigations should, as much as possible be decided on the merits and not on technicalities."cralaw virtua1aw library

And in Nasser v. Court of Appeals, Et. Al.: 16

"Litigation must at some time be terminated, even at the risk of occasional errors, for public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Court need not rule on the third issue, the same having been resolved with finality in G.R. No. 126112. "A decision that has become final and executory can no longer be disturbed." 17chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, for want of merit. Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. See Comment of Private Respondents, Rollo, pp. 32-33.

2. Rollo, Annex "A", pp. 32-33.

3. Ibid., Annex "B", p. 48

4. Ibid., Annex "C", p. 49.

5. See Entry of Judgment, Annex "D", Rollo, p. 51.

6. Rollo, Annex "G", p. 90.

7. Ibid., Annex "A", pp. 18-20.

8. Ibid., Annex "F" pp. 55-56.

9. B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 28.

10. Manila Electric Company v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 200.

11. 219 SCRA 62.

12. Supra, footnote 3.

13. De la Peña v. De la Peña, 258 SCRA 298; Depamaylo v. Brotarlo, 265 SCRA 151.

14. Manila Electric Company v. La Campana Food Products, Inc., Et Al., 247 SCRA 77.

15. 255 SCRA 238, 247, citing Goldloop Properties, Inc. v. CA, 212 SCRA 498 (August 11, 1992).

16. 245 SCRA 20, 29.

17. Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 250.




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





March-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 99266 March 2, 1999 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117105 March 2, 1999 - TIMES TRANSIT CREDIT COOP. INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124320 March 2, 1999 - HEIRS OF GUIDO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL. v. ROY S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125138 March 2, 1999 - NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125683 March 2, 1999 - EDEN BALLATAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126134 March 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOVEN DE LA CUESTA

  • G.R. No. 131047 March 2, 1999 - TOYOTA AUTOPARTS, PHILS., INC. v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1178 March 3, 1999 - COMELEC v. BUCO R. DATU-IMAN

  • A.M. No. P-94-1107 March 3, 1999 - CARMELINA CENIZA-GUEVARRA v. CELERINA R. MAGBANUA

  • G.R. No. 93090 March 3, 1999 - ROMEO CABELLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127575 March 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO CANTERE

  • G.R. No. 127801 March 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL YU VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 130347 March 3, 1999 - ABELARDO VALARAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134096 March 3, 1999 - JOSEPH PETER S. SISON v. COMELEC

  • A.M. No. P-99-1286 March 4, 1999 - CONCEPCION L. JEREZ v. ARTURO A. PANINSURO

  • G.R. No. 108027 March 4, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA M. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 111676 March 4, 1999 - SILVINA TORRES VDA. DE CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117213 March 4, 1999 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN v. MARIANO ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122539 March 4, 1999 - JESUS V. TIOMICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123936 March 4, 1999 - RONALD SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132648 March 4, 1999 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133563 March 4, 1999 - BRIDGET BONENG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 123792 March 8, 1999 - MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125537 March 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE MAGLANTAY

  • A.C. CBD No. 167 March 9, 1999 - PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES v. DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1175 March 9, 1999 - VICTORINO CRUZ v. REYNOLD Q. YANEZA

  • G.R. No. 108532 March 9, 1999 - PABLITO TANEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115741 March 9, 1999 - HEIRS OF JOAQUIN ASUNCION v. MARGARITO GERVACIO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121587 March 9, 1999 - SOLEDAD DY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126123 March 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO PLATILLA

  • G.R. No. 128721 March 9, 1999 - CRISMINA GARMENTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-94-1106 March 10, 1999 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO v. ROLANDO G. LEYVA

  • Adm. Matters No. RTJ-98-1423 March 10, 1999 - ROMAN CAGATIN, ET AL. v. LEONARDO N. DEMECILLO

  • G.R. No. 95815 March 10, 1999 - SERVANDO MANGAHAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120163 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATUKON BANSIL

  • G.R. No. 120971 March 10, 1999 - TAGGAT INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123426 March 10, 1999 - NAT’L. FEDERATION OF LABOR v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 126874 March 10, 1999 - GSIS v. ANTONIO P. OLISA

  • G.R. No. 127123 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH LAKINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 129442 March 10, 1999 - FEDERICO PALLADA, ET AL. v. RTC OF KALIBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129824 March 10, 1999 - DE PAUL/KING PHILIP CUSTOMS TAILOR, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1293 March 11, 1999 - EMILIO DILAN, ET AL. v. JUAN R. DULFO

  • G.R. No. 95326 March 11, 1999 - ROMEO P. BUSUEGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106518 March 11, 1999 - ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108440-42 March 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 109721 March 11, 1999 - FELIX A. SAJOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109979 March 11, 1999 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119157 March 11, 1999 - GOLDEN THREAD KNITTING INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125590 March 11, 1999 - BIOMIE S. OCHAGABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127004 March 11, 1999 - NAT’L. STEEL CORP. v. RTC OF LANAO DEL NORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127663 March 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132250 March 11, 1999 - ROSALIA P. SALVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 123982 March 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO K. JOYNO

  • G.R. No. 134188 March 15, 1999 - NUR G. JAAFAR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61508 March 17, 1999 - CITIBANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111704 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 115693 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVERIANO BOTONA

  • G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1999 - EULALIA RUSSELL, ET AL. v. AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120751 March 17, 1999 - PHIMCO INDUSTRIES v. JOSE BRILLANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125311 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONYOT MAHINAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129695 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO TABONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130380 March 17, 1999 - HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO BLANCAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115006 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 119756 March 18, 1999 - FORTUNE EXPRESS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127542 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHENG HO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 128682 March 18, 1999 - JOAQUIN T. SERVIDAD v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 97-6-182-RTC March 19, 1999 - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC, BRANCH 68

  • G.R. No. 96262 March 22, 1999 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. EMBROIDERY AND GARMENTS INDUSTRIES (PHIL.)

  • G.R. No. 116738 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO DOMOGOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126286 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER VAYNACO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126714 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 127523 March 22, 1999 - LEONCIA ALIPOON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1296 March 25, 1999 - DANIEL CRUZ v. CLERK OF COURT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1297 March 25, 1999 - LUDIVINA MARISGA-MAGBANUA v. EMILIO T. VILLAMAR V

  • G.R. No. 96740 March 25, 1999 - VIRGINIA P. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103953 March 25, 1999 - SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG KAPDULA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112088 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO ALMADEN

  • G.R. Nos. 116741-43 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MONTEFALCON

  • G.R. No. 117154 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO A. BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. 119172 March 25, 1999 - BELEN C. FIGUERRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120505 March 25, 1999 - AIUP, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122966-67 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR S. ALOJADO

  • G.R. No. 123160 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BATION

  • G.R. No. 124300 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENANTE ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 125053 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRISTOPHER CAÑA LEONOR

  • G.R. Nos. 126183 & 129221 March 25, 1999 - LUZVIMINDA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126916 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLINO BACONG MANAGAYTAY

  • G.R. No 127373 March 25, 1999 - ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127662 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO V. ERIBAL

  • G.R. No. 127708 March 25, 1999 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN PABLO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO V. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128386 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUDITO ALQUIZALAS

  • G.R. No. 130491 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MENGOTE

  • G.R. No. 130872 March 25, 1999 - FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131108 March 25, 1999 - ASIAN ALCOHOL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132980 March 25, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GLADYS C. LABRADOR

  • G.R. No. 133107 March 25, 1999 - RCBC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1082 & 98-10-135-MCTC March 29, 1999 - MARCELO CUEVA v. OLIVER T. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P-94-1015 March 29, 1999 - JASMIN MAGUAD, ET AL. v. NICOLAS DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93291 March 29, 1999 - SULPICIO LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113150 March 29, 1999 - HENRY TANCHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122827 March 29, 1999 - LIDUVINO M. MILLARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125129 March 29, 1999 - JOSEPH H. REYES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 129058 March 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO SEVILLENO

  • G.R. No. 131124 March 29, 1999 - OSMUNDO G. UMALI v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123540 March 30, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN AYO