Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > April 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 118605 April 12, 2000 - EDGARDO MANCENIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 118605. April 12, 2000.]

EDGARDO MANCENIDO FOR HIMSELF AND OTHER TEACHERS OF CAMARINES NORTE HIGH SCHOOL, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD, PROVINCIAL SCHOOL BOARD, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR, PROVINCIAL TREASURER AND PROVINCIAL AUDITOR, ALL OF THE PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE, Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N


QUISUMBING, J.:


This is a petition for review of the decision dated October 17, 1994, by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 34331, enjoining the partial execution of the judgment dated December 20, 1993, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Camarines Norte, Branch 38 in Civil Case No. 5864 entitled "Edgardo Mancenido, Et. Al. v. The Provincial Board, Et. Al. for mandamus and damages.chanrobles.com : virtuallawlibrary

The antecedent facts as summarized by the Court of Appeals are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On September 6, 1990 private respondent [herein petitioner] Eduardo Mancenido filed an action for mandamus and damages with the Regional Trial of Camarines Norte, Branch 38, Daet (docketed as Civil Case No. 5864), against the petitioners provincial board of Camarines Norte, the school board, provincial governor, provincial treasurer, and provincial auditor to pay the teacher’s claim for unpaid salary increases.

"On December 19, 1990, petitioners [herein co-respondents] filed their answer to the complaint.

"On December 20, 1993, the lower court rendered a decision ordering the Provincial School Board to appropriate and satisfy plaintiffs’ claim in the amount of P268,800.00, as unpaid salary increases.

"On February 21, 1994, petitioners [herein co-respondents] filed a notice of appeal.

"On February 24, 1994, respondent judge issued an order giving due course to petitioners’ appeal.

"On March 1, 1994, private respondents filed a notice of appeal.

"On the same date, private respondents filed an opposition to petitioners’ notice of appeal and a motion for partial execution of judgment.

"On April 8, 1994, respondent judge issued an order (1) recalling the order of February 23, 1994, granting the appeal of petitioners; (2) approving the appeal of private respondents; and (3) granting their motion for partial execution.

"On April 14, 1994, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of April 8, 1994.

"On June 1, 1994, respondent judge denied the motion for reconsideration." 1

Dissatisfied with the denial, respondents herein filed a petition for mandamus, prohibition, and injunction with the Court of Appeals with the prayer, among others, that their notice of appeal be given due course and the trial court be prohibited from enforcing the partial execution of its judgment. Said petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 34331.

Subsequently, the appellate court rendered its decision of October 17, 1994, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for prohibition and mandamus and hereby orders respondent judge: (1) to elevate the original record of Civil Case No. 5864 to the Court of Appeals in due course of appeal; and (2) to desist from the partial execution of the decision in the case.

"No costs.

"SO ORDERED." 2

Petitioners then filed a motion to reconsider the appellate court’s decision, which motion was denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution dated December 21, 1994.

Hence, the instant petition anchored on the following assignment of errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"a. The Court of Appeals has erred in recognizing the authority of Atty. Jose Lapak to file the subject Notice of Appeal.

"b. The Court of Appeals has erred in recognizing that the service of a copy of the subject Notice of Appeal upon Petitioners themselves is valid.

"c. The Court of Appeals has erred in enjoining the partial execution of the Decision dated December 20, 1993 rendered by the Trial Court." 3

For our resolution now are the following issues: (1) Whether a private counsel may represent municipal officials sued in their official capacities; and (2) Whether a Notice of Appeal filed through private counsel and with notice to petitioners and not to their counsel is valid.

Anent the first issue, petitioners contend that Atty. Jose Lapak could not represent the respondents Provincial Treasurer and Provincial School Board, because both are instrumentalities of the National Government and may be represented only by the Office of the Solicitor General pursuant to Section 35, Chapter 12, Title 3, Book 4 of the Administrative Code of 1987. Only the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Norte may represent the Provincial Governor and the Provincial Board in accordance with Section 481 [1], par. B of the Local Government Code of 1991. Petitioners cite Province of Cebu v. IAC, 147 SCRA 447 (1987), where we held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The municipality’s authority to employ a private lawyer is expressly limited only to situations where the provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent it (De Guia v. The Auditor General, 44 SCRA 169; Municipality of Bocaue, Et. Al. v. Manotok, 93 Phil. 173; Enriquez, Sr., v. Honorable Gimenez, 107 Phil. 932) as when he represents the province against a municipality.

"The lawmaker, in requiring that the local government should be represented in its court cases by a government lawyer, like its municipal attorney and the provincial fiscal, intended that the local government should not be burdened with the expenses of hiring a private lawyer. The lawmaker also assumed that the interests of the municipal corporation would be best protected if a government lawyer handles its litigations." 4

Petitioners also pray that the Notice of Appeal filed by respondents dated February 18, 1994, be deemed a mere scrap of paper. They claim that it was filed by a lawyer not authorized to do so. Even granting that Atty. Lapak could represent respondents in filing the Notice of Appeal, they add, it was not properly served since its copy was sent to petitioners and not to their counsel of record. They conclude that this error is fatal to their appeal. For in Riego v. Riego, 18 SCRA 91 (1966), we held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

" [W]here a party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in a court of record, all notices thereafter required to be given therein must be given to the attorney and not to the client, and a notice given to the client and not to his attorney is not a notice in law." 5

Finally, petitioners point out, since the questioned Notice of Appeal had fatal defects, its filing did not toll the running of the period for the finality of judgment and petitioners could still file a motion for partial execution of the judgment.

After considering petitioners’ arguments, however, we find their contentions far from persuasive.

Section 481, Article 11, Title V of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) provides for the appointment of a legal officer, whose function is:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(I) Represent the local government unit in all civil actions and special proceedings wherein the local government unit or any official thereof, in his official capacity, is a party: Provided, That, in actions or proceedings where a component city or municipality is a party adverse to the provincial government or to another component city or municipality, a special legal officer may be employed to represent the adverse party;"

The Court has previously ruled on the representation of a local government unit by a private attorney. In Municipality of Bocaue v. Manotok, 93 Phil, 173 (1953), and succeeding cases, we held that only when the provincial fiscal is disqualified may the municipal council be authorized to hire the services of a special attorney. We reiterated this in De Guia v. Auditor General, 44 SCRA 169 (1972). 6 In Enriquez, Sr. v. Gimenez, 107 Phil 932 (1960), we enumerated the instances when the provincial public prosecutor is disqualified from representing a particular municipality, i.e., when the jurisdiction of a case involving the municipality lies with the Supreme Court, when the municipality is a party adverse to the provincial government or to some other municipality in the same province, and when in a case involving the municipality, the provincial prosecutor, his spouse, or his child is involved as a creditor, heir, legatee, or otherwise.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

But do these rulings equally apply to local government officials? In Alinsug v. RTC, Br. 58, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, 225 SCRA 559 (1993), we laid down the rule that, in resolving whether a local government official may secure the services of private counsel in an action filed against him in his official capacity, the nature of the action and the relief sought are to be considered. In Albuera v. Torres, 102 Phil. 211 (1957), we approved the representation by private counsel of a provincial governor sued in his official capacity, where the complaint contained other allegations and a prayer for moral damages, which, if due from the defendants, must be satisfied by them in their private capacity. In Province of Cebu v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra, we declared that where rigid adherence to the law on representation would deprive a party of his right to redress for a valid grievance, the hiring of private counsel would be proper.

The present case had its origins in Civil Case No. 5864 filed before the RTC of Camarines Norte, Branch 38, for mandamus and damages. Notwithstanding the fact that the trial court granted mandamus, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals since the trial court did not award damages. In view of the damages sought which, if granted, could result in personal liability, respondents could not be deemed to have been improperly represented by private counsel. No error may thus be attributed to the appellate court when it recognized the right of respondents to be represented by private counsel.

On the second issue, petitioners argue that respondents failed to perfect their appeal since respondents served a copy of their Notice of Appeal upon petitioners, and not upon their counsel of record. It is settled that the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in accordance with the Rules of Court. 7

Section 1, Rule 49 of the Rules of Court provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 1. Pleadings, motions, service of papers and proof thereof . — Pleadings, motions, filing and service of papers, and proof thereof, except as otherwise provided, shall be governed by Rules 7, 8, 9, 13, and 15, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this rule."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 2. Papers to be filed and served. — Every order required by its terms to be served, every pleading subsequent to the complaint, every written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte, and every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be filed with the court, and served upon the parties affected thereby. If any of such parties has appeared by an attorney or attorneys, service upon him shall be made upon his attorneys or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Where one attorney appears for several parties, he shall be entitled only to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side." (Emphasis supplied).

Pursuant to the aforecited Rules, service of notice when a party is represented by counsel should be made upon counsel, and not upon the party. The purpose of the rule is to maintain a uniform procedure calculated to place in competent hands the prosecution of a party’s case. 8 We find petitioners’ reliance on Riego proper and to the point. 9

We find, however, that no error was committed by the Court of Appeals when it ordered the trial court (a) to elevate the original record of Civil Case No. 5864 and (b) to desist from any further proceedings in said case. Petitioners did appeal the decision of the trial court to the appellate court within the reglementary period to perfect an appeal. Once a written notice of appeal is filed, appeal is perfected and the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, both over the record and subject of the case. 10

With respect to the trial court’s order of partial execution pending appeal, our view is that it was properly challenged by respondents in a special civil action. 11 We have held that the execution of a judgment before becoming final by reason of appeal is allowed, but only in exceptional cases and only if firmly founded upon good reasons for such execution. 12 In other words, a judge should state in his special order granting a writ of execution pending appeal "good reasons" justifying the issuance of said writ. 13 The Court of Appeals found the order of the judge bereft of such "good reasons." In the absence of good reasons which would justify execution pending appeal, it became incumbent upon the reviewing court, to order the elevation of the records of the case in due course, for its appropriate consideration, otherwise failure to do so might constitute grave abuse of discretion on its part. 14 To attribute error to the Court of Appeals when it rendered the assailed decision is to misunderstand the rationale for the action it had taken.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 34331 AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 29-30.

2. Id. at 32.

3. Id. at 20.

4. 147 SCRA 455 [1987).

5. 18 SCRA 93 (1966).

6. Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 108 SCRA 728 (1981); Province of Cebu v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Et Al., 147 SCRA 447 (1987); cf. Municipality of Pililla, Rizal v. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 484 (1994).

7. Republic v. Register of Deeds of Quezon, 244 SCRA 537 (1995).

8. National Investment and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 497 (1997).

9. See Note 5.

10. Obosa v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 281 (1997).

11. Nazareno v. COMELEC, 279 SCRA 89 (1997).

12. David v. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 424 (1997).

13. Del Callar v. Salvador, 268 SCRA 320 (1997).

14. Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, 279 SCRA 364 (1997).




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






April-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1261 April 3, 2000 - NOE CANGCO ZARATE v. ISAURO M. BALDERIAN

  • G.R. No. 116689 April 3, 2000 - NOLI MARQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125688 April 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CUPINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129029 April 3, 2000 - RAFAEL REYES TRUCKING CORPORATION v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-7-250-RTC April 5, 2000 - CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION BEFORE RETIRED JUDGE MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1337 April 5, 2000 - TERESA T. GONZALES LA’O & CO. v. JADI T. HATAB

  • G.R. No. 111080 April 5, 2000 - JOSE S. OROSA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118248 April 5, 2000 - DKC HOLDINGS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121906 April 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 129970 April 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO PAVILLARE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130508 April 5, 2000.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO REGALA

  • G.R. Nos. 131730-31 April 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO FEROLINO.

  • G.R. Nos. 134536-38 April 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ELISEO ALVERO

  • G.R. Nos. 135438-39 April 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO DURANGO

  • G.R. No. 142261 April 5, 2000 - MANUEL M. LAPID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4646 April 6, 2000 - ROSITA S. TORRES v. AMADO D. ORDEN

  • A.C. No. 5019 April 6, 2000 - ADORACION G. ANGELES v. THOMAS C. UY JR.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1262 April 6, 2000 - RODOLFO M. TAPIRU v. PINERA A. BIDEN

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1265 April 6, 2000 - VALENCIDES VERCIDE v. PRISCILLA T. HERNANDEZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1266 April 6, 2000 - SALVADOR C. RUIZ v. AGELIO L. BRINGAS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1550 April 6, 2000 - ANTONIO T. ALMENDRA v. ENRIQUE C. ASIS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1448 April 6, 2000 - SAPHIA M. MAGARANG v. GALDINO B. JARDIN

  • G.R. No. 115182 April 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITUTO ROCHE

  • G.R. No. 122290 April 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BAGO

  • G.R. No. 125018 April 6, 2000 - REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130442 April 6, 2000 - THE SUMMARY DISMISSAL BOARD AND THE REGIONAL APPELLATE BOARD v. LAZARO TORCITA

  • G.R. No. 130611 April 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO SUZA

  • G.R. No. 134562 April 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO LUSTRE

  • G.R. No. 136467 April 6, 2000 - ANTONIA ARMAS v. MARIETTA CALISTERIO

  • G.R. No. 137761 April 6, 2000 - GABRIEL LAZARO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137944 April 6, 2000 - FERNANDA MENDOZA CEQUENA, ET AL. v. HONORATA MENDOZA BOLANTE

  • G.R. No. 139489 April 10, 2000 - DANILO FERRER v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4700 April 12, 2000 - RICARDO B. MANUBAY v. GINA C. GARCIA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1225 April 12, 2000 - NELFA SAYLO v. REMIGIO V. ROJO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-95-1308 April 12, 2000 - EVELYN AGPALASIN v. EMERITO M. AGCAOILI

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1405 April 12, 2000 - MARIA IMELDA MARCOS MANOTOC, ET AL. v. EMERITO M. AGCAOILI

  • G.R. Nos. 94617 & 95281 April 12, 2000 - ERLINDA M. VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. ANGEL S. MALAYA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101738 April 12, 2000 - PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP. OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102184 April 12, 2000 - CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY v. CONSTANCIO F. COLLERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107014 April 12, 2000 - CHONA P. TORRES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107040 April 12, 2000 - PILO MILITANTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108921 April 12, 2000 - JOSEFINA VILLANUEVA-MIJARES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109002 & 110072 April 12, 2000 - DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DLSUEA), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112569 April 12, 2000 - SHUHEI YASUDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116426 April 12, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO SODSOD

  • G.R. No. 118176 April 12, 2000 - PROTECTOR’S SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118605 April 12, 2000 - EDGARDO MANCENIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118655 April 12, 2000 - HEIRS OF ELIAS LORILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 119289 April 12, 2000 - EVELYN CATUBAY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120280 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 121035 April 12, 2000 - RUFINO NORBERTO F. SAMSON v. NLRC, et. al.

  • G.R. No. 121203 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR ASPIRAS

  • G.R. No. 121682 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BEN FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 122480 April 12, 2000 - BPI-FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 124299 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LACANIETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125292 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDY ROJAS

  • G.R. No. 127263 April 12, 2000 - FILIPINA Y. SY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128085-87 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAZONABLE

  • G.R. No. 128821 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128991 April 12, 2000 - YOLANDA ROSELLO-BENTIR v. MATEO M. LEANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130333 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO VELOSO

  • G.R. No. 131357 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO GARCHITORENA

  • G.R. No. 132079 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. TONNY ADOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133647 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELIO CONDE

  • G.R. No. 133880 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY ANTOLIN

  • G.R. Nos. 134130-33 April 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIXBERTO FRAGA

  • G.R. No. 135098 April 12, 2000 - PAULINO VILLANUEVA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 136722 April 12, 2000 - INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. PABLO BONDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137650 April 12, 2000 - GUILLERMA TUMLOS v. MARIO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139028 April 12, 2000 - HADJI RASUL BATADOR BASHER v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139680 April 12, 2000 - WILLIAM R. BAYANI v. PANAY ELECTRIC CO.

  • G.R. No. 126043 April 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL MAGAYAC

  • G.R. No. 109595 April 27, 2000 - CRISTETA CHUA-BURCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110844 April 27, 2000 - ALFREDO CHING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111941 April 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD ESTORCO, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 115634 April 27, 2000 - FELIPE CALUB, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117324 April 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO GUIWAN

  • G.R. No. 117652 April 27, 2000 - ROLANDO APARENTE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117802 April 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DENNIS LEGASPI, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 117954 April 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO ACURAM

  • G.R. No. 129899 April 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VILLA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 130188 April 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 131840 April 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132252 April 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS MUYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132269 April 27, 2000 - HARRISON MOTORS CORP. v. RACHEL A. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. 132470 April 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO SULTAN

  • G.R. No. 134990 April 27, 2000 - MANUEL M. LEYSON, JR. v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124617 April 28, 2000 - PHIL. AEOLUS AUTO-MOTIVE UNITED CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127761 April 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO R. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. 129471 April 28, 2000 - DBP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135602 April 28, 2000 - QUIRICO SERASPI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135885 April 28, 2000 - JUAN J. DIAZ, ET AL. v. JOSE DIAZ, ET AL.