Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > October 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 125272 October 7, 1999 - CANDIDO AMIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 125272. October 7, 1999.]

CANDIDO AMIL, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, and SPOUSES ERNESTO GADOR and NILA GADOR, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


MENDOZA, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, dated January 29, 1996, affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, dated October 26, 1993, which declared private respondents Ernesto and Nila Gador the absolute owners of the parcel of land, covered by Transfer Certificate Title No. 14021, in Calindagan, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental.cralawnad

The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioner Amil and private respondents Ernesto and Nila Gador executed a document entitled "Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale," dated November 14, 1987, involving the land in dispute. The parties stipulated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That Vendor A-Retro, Candido C. Amil, for and in consideration of the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, in hand paid to him and receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged to his entire satisfaction, do by these presents, SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY, under Pacto De Retro, unto the herein Vendees A-Retro, the spouses Ernesto T. Gador and Nila A. Gador their heirs, successors and assigns, the above described parcel of land together with all the improvements thereon, free from all liens and encumbrances.

That Vendor A-Retro, Candido C. Amil, reserve for himself the right to redeem or repurchase the property herein sold, and the Vendees A-Retro, in turn, obligate themselves to resell the parcel of land sold, within a period of THREE (3) YEARS, from and after the due execution of this instrument, for the same price of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that if the Vendor A-Retro, Candido C. Amil, fails to exercise his right to redeem or repurchase as herein granted within the period stipulated upon, then this conveyance shall be deemed to be an absolute and irrevocable sale, without the necessity of executing any further deed or instituting judicial action to consolidate the ownership in the name of the Vendees A-Retro. 2

The parties executed another document entitled "Addendum to Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale," dated December 12, 1987 which provided:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That the Party of the First Part, the spouses Ernesto T. Gador and Nila A. Gador, are the Mortgagees of that certain parcel of land situated at Barrio Calindagan, Dumaguete City, under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14021 and the Party of the Second Part is the Mortagor of said parcel of land, for and in consideration of the sum of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, per Doc. No. 3; Book No. 1; Page No. 1; Series of 1987 of Notary Public Jose G. Hernando, Jr., dated the 14th day of November, 1987, at Dumaguete City.

That considering that the Party of the First Part has to pay an additional sum of One Thousand and Eight Hundred (P1,800.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, to cover costs or expenses for Capital Gains Tax and Documentary Stamps, the Party of the Second Part hereby agrees and covenants that his right to redeem or repurchase the parcel of land subject matter of the Mortgage, within the period stipulated, shall cover and include said amount of (P1,800.00) or the total sum of Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred (P31,800.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency. 3

After the redemption period had expired, private respondents filed a petition for the consolidation of their ownership over the property in question. Petitioner was declared in default as his counsel, Atty. Reynaldo Piñero, failed to file an answer to the petition. Thereafter, the case was heard and on October 26, 1993, judgment was rendered by the court, the dispositive portion of which states:chanrobles.com : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and considering the fact that respondent failed to file an answer to the petition or failed to appear before this Court, in spite of the Court’s efforts in exerting all possible means to give the respondent his day in Court in order for him to be duly heard before this Court in connection with this case, this Court hereby renders Judgment declaring petitioners Ernesto T. Gador and Nila A. Gador as the absolute owners of the Five Hundred (500) square meters of Lot No. 782-D-4 of the Subdivision Plan, Psd-07-03-006671, being a portion of Lot 782-D (LRC) Psd-120931, situated in the Barrio of Calindagan, City of Dumaguete, the same being covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14021. The Register of Deeds of Dumaguete City is hereby ordered to make the corresponding annotation of the Consolidation of Ownership in the Vendees-A-Retro, Ernesto T. Gador and Nila A. Gador on the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14021 upon payment of the prescribed fees thereof.

Petitioner, through a new counsel, then filed a motion for new trial, which, however, was denied. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in its decision dated January 29, 1996, affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

We agree with the trial court’s denial of respondent-appellant’s motion for new trial. Respondent had been given full opportunity to answer and be heard. It is the duty of a party litigant to make inquiries to counsel on matters concerning his case (Elino Ong Reyes v. CA, 189 SCRA 46; Florendo v. Florendo, 27 SCRA 432). In fact, respondent’s alleged counsel never even entered his appearance. Under these circumstances, including those earlier adverted to, We rule that respondent did not exercise the ordinary prudence required of him by Rule 37, section 1(a) of the Rules of Court, and his negligence is not excusable to justify a new trial.

We find likewise without merit defendant-appellant’s contentions that the Addendum dated December 12, 1987 clarifies or at least engenders doubt as to the real intent of the parties and that the contract is in reality a mortgage. The Addendum itself speaks of a capital gains tax to be paid by the spouses Ernesto and Nila Gador. It also states that Candido C. Amil "hereby agrees and covenants (that) his right to redeem on repurchase the parcel of land . . ." Such stipulations are distinctive indicia of a sale, transfer or exchange of real property with right to repurchase. The two documents, read together and taken jointly, clearly evince a contract of sale with right to repurchase. It is therefore of no moment that the words "mortgage" and "mortgagee" were used in the Addendum. If words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former. (Article 1370, New Civil Code; Sy v. Court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 116).

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. With costs against Appellant.

Hence, this petition. It is contended that —

1. The lower Court gravely erred in denying appellant’s motion for new trial; and

2. The lower Court gravely erred in granting consolidation of ownership in favor of petitioners-appellees considering that by their own evidence, namely the "Addendum to Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale" dated December 12, 1987 (Exh. "B", Record), it is expressly stated that the contract is merely MORTGAGE, NOT PACTO DE RETRO SALE.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

We find the petition to be meritorious. Rule 37, �1 of the Revised Rules of Court of 1964 provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Within the period for perfecting appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights;

(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered, and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result;

(c) Award of excessive damages, or insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision, or that the decision is against the law.

As already noted, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a new trial on the ground that the failure of petitioner’s original counsel to file an answer within the reglementary period cannot be considered as excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. According to the Court of Appeals, petitioner is bound by the mistakes of his former counsel.

To be sure, as a rule, a party is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. As we explained in Tesoro v. Court of Appeals: 4

It has been repeatedly enunciated that a client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had he proceeded differently. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. If such grounds were to be admitted as reasons for reopening cases, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned.

Accordingly, this Court has affirmed the denial by trial courts of motions for new trial on the ground that the failure of counsel to file an answer within the reglementary period cannot be considered as excusable negligence. 5

In this case, however, there are factual considerations necessitating a different outcome. First, an exception to the principle that a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel is one wherein the negligence of the latter is so gross that the former was deprived of his day in court, as a result of which he is deprived of property without due process of law. Thus, in Legarda v. Court of Appeals, 6 this Court ordered the restoration to petitioner of her property sold at public auction in satisfaction of a default judgment resulting from the failure of her counsel to submit an answer and his lack of vigilance in protecting her interests in subsequent proceedings before the trial court and the Court of Appeals.chanrobles law library : red

In the instant case, petitioner was likewise declared in default because of the failure of his former counsel, Atty. Piñero, to file within the reglementary period an answer to private respondent’s petition for consolidation of ownership. Atty. Piñero likewise failed to take any action to protect the interests of petitioner in subsequent proceedings before the trial court, such as by filing an opposition to the motion to declare him in default or by moving to set aside the order of default. It was Atty. Saleto J. Erasmes, the present counsel of petitioner, who filed the motion for new trial after a judgment by default had been rendered against him. As a consequence of his former counsel’s gross negligence, petitioner was deprived of his day in court.

Secondly, as we have emphasized, trial courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default and granting motions for new trial if the defendant appears to have a meritorious defense. 7 Parties must be given every opportunity to present their sides. The issuance of orders of default should be the exception rather than the rule, to be allowed only in clear cases of obstinate refusal by the defendant to comply with the orders of the trial court. 8

Thirdly, petitioner appears to have a meritorious defense. Indeed, it would appear that the contract between petitioner and private respondents is an equitable mortgage rather than a pacto de retro sale. Arts. 1602 and 1603 of the Civil Code provide:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ARTICLE 1602. The contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage, in any of the following cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is unusually inadequate;

(2) When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise;

(3) When upon or after the expiration of the right to repurchase another instrument extending the period of redemption or granting a new period is executed;

(4) When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price;

(5) When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold;

(6) In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall procure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation.

In any of the foregoing cases, any money, fruits, or other benefit to be received by the vendee as rent or otherwise shall be considered as interest which shall be subject to the usury laws.

ARTICLE 1603. In case of doubt, a contract purporting to be a sale with right to repurchase shall be construed as an equitable mortgage.

The price of P30,000.00 for the subject property appears to be unusually inadequate. Furthermore, the words "mortgage," "mortgagor," and "mortgagees" appear in the "Addendum to Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale." Finally, it should be noted that the "Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale" provides that "if the Vendor A-Retro, Candido C. Amil, fails to exercise his right to redeem or repurchase as herein granted within the period stipulated upon, then this conveyance shall be deemed to be an absolute and irrevocable sale, without the necessity of executing any further deed or instituting judicial action to consolidate the ownership in the name of the Vendees A-Retro." This stipulation is void for being a pactum commissorium. 9 Considering all these, the trial court should have granted petitioner a new trial to enable him to present evidence on the true nature of the contract in question.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 29, 1996, is hereby REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Per Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Justices Artemon D. Luna and Ramon A. Barcelona.

2. Petition, Annex B, Rollo, pp. 21-22.

3. Id., Annex A, Rollo, pp. 17-18.

4. 54 SCRA 296 (1973).

5. See Malipol v. Tan, 55 SCRA 202 (1974).

6. 195 SCRA 418 (1991).

7. See Leyte v. Cusi, Jr., 152 SCRA 496 (1987).

8. Supra, pp. 498-499.

9. Ching Sen Ben v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124355, September 21, 1999.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • Bar Matter No. 914 October 1, 1999 - RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR v. VICENTE D. CHING

  • G.R. No. 89662 October 1, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO VILLABLANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89700-22 October 1, 1999 - AURELIO M. DE LA PEÑA, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107737 October 1, 1999 - JUAN L. PEREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120681-83 & 128136 October 1, 1999 - JEJOMAR C. BINAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126269 October 1, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGINO MARCELINO ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127777 October 1, 1999 - PETRONILA C. TUPAZ v. BENEDICTO B. ULEP

  • G.R. No. 132058 October 1, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN NARIDO

  • G.R. No. 132137 October 1, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR PADAMA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1487 October 4, 1999 - PEDRO G. PERALTA v. ALFREDO A. CAJIGAL

  • G.R. No. 121939 October 4, 1999 - SPOUSES ROMAN & AMELITA T. CRUZ, ET AL. v. SPOUSES ALFREDO & MELBA TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128813 October 4, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAMASITO VERGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132991 October 4, 1999 - RODOLFO MUNZON, ET AL. v. INSURANCE SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT AGENCY

  • A.M. No. 98-12-381-RTC October 5, 1999 - REQUEST OF JUDGE IRMA ZITA V. MASAMAYOR

  • G.R. No. 63145 October 5, 1999 - SULPICIA VENTURA v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115719-26 October 5, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENE YABUT

  • G.R. Nos. 119418 & 119436-37 October 5, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN CARATAY

  • A.M. No. 98-1-11-RTC October 7, 1999 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC

  • G.R. No. 103515 October 7, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN SUELTO Y CORDETA

  • G.R. No. 120641 October 7, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIE FLORO

  • G.R. No. 125272 October 7, 1999 - CANDIDO AMIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131283 October 7, 1999 - OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106314-15 October 8, 1999 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CABAIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 107132 & 108472 October 8, 1999 - MAXIMA HEMEDES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111743 October 8, 1999 - VISITACION GABELO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112483 October 8, 1999 - ELOY IMPERIAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118624 October 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114937 October 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE APELADO

  • G.R. No. 124298 October 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN RONATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94432 October 12, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO LACHICA

  • G.R. No. 101188 October 12, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR RAGANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117925 October 12, 1999 - TENSOREX INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118498 & 124377 October 12, 1999 - FILIPINAS SYNTHETIC FIBER CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123031 October 12, 1999 - CEBU INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124262 October 12, 1999 - TOMAS CLAUDIO MEMORIAL COLLEGE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128805 October 12, 1999 - MA. IMELDA ARGEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133913 October 12, 1999 - JOSE MANUEL STILIANOPULOS v. CITY OF LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. 83466 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELIZALDE CULALA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1424 October 13, 1999 - ROMULO G. MADREDIJO, ET AL. v. LEANDRO T. LOYAO, JR.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1496 October 13, 1999 - EDESIO ADAO v. JUDGE CELSO F. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 102305 October 13, 1999 - FRANCISCO G. ZARATE AND CORAZON TIROL-ZARATE v. RTC OF KALIBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102675 October 13, 1999 - HENRY C. SEVESES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103606 October 13, 1999 - RELIGIOUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109963 October 13, 1999 - HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES: RICARDO TEVES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111737 October 13, 1999 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112370 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZA CLEMENTE

  • G.R. No. 113899 October 13, 1999 - GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115470 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO MANEGDEG

  • G.R. No. 115821 October 13, 1999 - JESUS T. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116220 October 13, 1999 - SPOUSES ROY PO LAM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116233 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. RENATO GAILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125534 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125763 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL PANIQUE

  • G.R. No. 128754 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO D. LANGRES

  • G.R. No. 130202 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS ERICK CLEMENTE

  • G.R. Nos. 130411-14 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO BELLO

  • G.R. No. 130784 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO AGUINALDO

  • G.R. No. 130961 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOBBY AGUNOS

  • G.R. No. 133491 October 13, 1999 - ALEXANDER G. ASUNCION v. EDUARDO B. EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133993 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO GABALLO

  • G.R. No. 134311 October 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELEUTERIO COSTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97652-53 October 19, 1999 - JOSE H. RUTAQUIO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106029 & 105770 October 19, 1999 - BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106467-68 October 19, 1999 - DOLORES LIGAYA DE MESA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1216 October 20, 1999 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LEONARDO F. QUIÑANOLA and RUBEN B. ALBAYTAR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1500 October 20, 1999 - VICTORIANO B. CARUAL v. VLADIMIR B. BRUSOLA

  • G.R. No. 109073 October 20, 1999 - EDUARDO BALAGTAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125307-09 October 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE CELIS

  • G.R. No. 130187 October 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT MOTOS

  • G.R. No. 132564 October 20, 1999 - SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132715 October 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR TABION

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1206 October 22, 1999 - NORTHCASTLE PROPERTIES and ESTATE CORP. v. ESTRELLITA M. PAAS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1229 October 22, 1999 - ROSARIO GARCIA v. PIO PASIA

  • A.M. RTJ-99-1430 October 22, 1999 - NARCISO G. BRAVO v. RICARDO M. MERDEGIA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1499 October 22, 1999 - GIL RAMON O. MARTIN v. ELEUTERIO F. GUERRERO

  • G.R. No. 75908 October 22, 1999 - FEDERICO O. BORROMEO v. AMANCIO SUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100353 October 22, 1999 - PNCC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106052 October 22, 1999 - PLANTERS PRODUCTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106770 October 22, 1999 - JOHNNY K. LIMA, ET AL. v. TRANSWAY SALES CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. 110994 October 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO MARAMARA

  • G.R. No. 125964 October 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ELEUTERIO GUARIN

  • G.R. No. 130708 October 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO ARIZALA

  • G.R. No. 134622 October 22, 1999 - AMININ L. ABUBAKAR v. AURORA A. ABUBAKAR

  • G.R. No. 130140 October 25, 1999 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131755 October 25, 1999 - MOVERS-BASECO INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES v. CYBORG LEASING CORP.

  • Adm. Case Nos. 3066 & 4438 October 26, 1999 - J.K. MERCADO AND SONS AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES v. EDUARDO DE VERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65416 October 26, 1999 - CARLOMAGNO A. CRUCILLO, ET AL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107800 October 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY PARANZO

  • G.R. No. 108846 October 26, 1999 - MOOMBA MINING EXPLORATION CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110111 October 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO GARIGADI

  • G.R. No. 111042 October 26, 1999 - AVELINO LAMBO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112090 October 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR LAZARO

  • G.R. No. 113708 October 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARQUILLOS TABUSO

  • G.R. No. 114087 October 26, 1999 - PLANTERS ASSN. OF SOUTHERN NEGROS INC. v. BERNARDO T. PONFERRADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118381 October 26, 1999 - T & C DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121483 October 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMANO MANLAPAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128531 October 26, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130439 October 26, 1999 - PHIL. VETERANS BANK v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131483 October 26, 1999 - Tai Lim v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133619 October 26, 1999 - JOSE B. TIONGCO v. MARCIANA Q. DEGUMA

  • G.R. No. 134194 October 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON BATOON

  • G.R. No. 128870 October 27, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ESPIRITU

  • G.R. Nos. 129968-69 October 27, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO DE LABAJAN

  • G.R. No. 108174 October 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO CANAGURAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120852 October 28, 1999 - BENJAMIN D. OBRA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123071 October 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERONICO M. LOBINO

  • G.R. No. 125214 October 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126955 October 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO TIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133944 October 28, 1999 - MARCITA MAMBA PEREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1316 October 29, 1999 - KENNETH S. NEELAND v. ILDEFONSO M. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1505 October 29, 1999 - ARSENIA T. BERGONIA v. ALICIA B. GONZALEZ-DECANO

  • G.R. Nos. 100342-44 October 29, 1999 - RURAL BANK OF ALAMINOS EMPLOYEES UNION (RBAEU), ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106102 October 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO SARABIA

  • G.R. No. 109355 October 29, 1999 - SERAFIN MODINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121344 October 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ALTABANO, ET AL.