Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > February 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 121605 February 2, 2000 - PAZ MARTIN JO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 121605. February 2, 2000.]

PAZ MARTIN JO and CESAR JO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PETER MEJILA, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


QUISUMBING, J.:


This petition for certiorari seeks to set aside the Decision 1 of National Labor Relations Commission (Fifth Division) promulgated on November 21, 1994, and its Resolution dated June 7, 1995, which denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Private respondent Peter Mejila worked as barber on a piece rate basis at Dina’s Barber Shop. In 1970, the owner, Dina Tan, sold the barbershop to petitioners Paz Martin Jo and Cesar Jo. All the employees, including private respondent, were absorbed by the new owners. The name of the barbershop was changed to Windfield Barber Shop.

The owners and the barbers shared in the earnings of the barber shop. The barbers got two-thirds (2/3) of the fee paid for every haircut or shaving job done, while one-third (1/3) went to the owners of the shop.

In 1977, petitioners designated private respondent as caretaker of the shop because the former caretaker became physically unfit. Private respondent’s duties as caretaker, in addition to his being a barber, were: (1) to report to the owners of the barbershop whenever the airconditioning units malfunctioned and/or whenever water or electric power supply was interrupted; (2) to call the laundry woman to wash dirty linen; (3) to recommend applicants for interview and hiring; (4) to attend to other needs of the shop. For this additional job, he was given an honorarium equivalent to one-third (1/3) of the net income of the shop.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

When the building occupied by the shop was demolished in 1986, the barbershop closed. But soon a place nearby was rented by petitioners and the barbershop resumed operations as Cesar’s Palace Barbershop and Massage Clinic. In this new location, private respondent continued to be a barber and caretaker, but with a fixed monthly honorarium as caretaker, to wit: from February 1986 to 1990 — P700; from February 1990 to March 1991 — P800; and from July 1992 — P1,300.

In November 1992, private respondent had an altercation with his co-barber, Jorge Tinoy. The bickerings, characterized by constant exchange of personal insults during working hours, became serious so that private respondent reported the matter to Atty. Allan Macaraya of the labor department. The labor official immediately summoned private respondent and petitioners to a conference. Upon investigation, it was found out that the dispute was not between private respondent and petitioners; rather, it was between the former and his fellow barber. Accordingly, Atty. Macaraya directed petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Prudencio Abragan, to thresh out the problem.

During the mediation meeting held at Atty. Abragan’s office a new twist was added. Despite the assurance that he was not being driven out as caretaker-barber, private respondent demanded payment for several thousand pesos as his separation pay and other monetary benefits. In order to give the parties enough time to cool off, Atty. Abragan set another conference but private respondent did not appear in such meeting anymore.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Meanwhile, private respondent continued reporting for work at the barbershop. But, on January 2, 1993, he turned over the duplicate keys of the shop to the cashier and took away all his belongings therefrom. On January 8, 1993, he began working as a regular barber at the newly opened Goldilocks Barbershop also in Iligan City.

On January 12, 1993, private respondent filed a complaint 2 for illegal dismissal with prayer for payment of separation pay, other monetary benefits, attorney’s fees and damages. Significantly, the complaint did not seek reinstatement as a positive relief.

In a Decision dated June 15, 1993, the Labor Arbiter found that private respondent was an employee of petitioners, and that private respondent was not dismissed but had left his job voluntarily because of his misunderstanding with his co-worker. 3 The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but ordered petitioners to pay private respondent his 13th month pay and attorney’s fees.

Both parties appealed to the NLRC. In a Decision dated November 21, 1994, it set aside the labor arbiter’s judgment. The NLRC sustained the labor arbiter’s finding as to the existence of employer-employee relationship between petitioners and private respondent, but it ruled that private respondent was illegally dismissed. Hence, the petitioners were ordered to reinstate private respondent and pay the latter’s backwages, 13th month pay, separation pay and attorney’s fees, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For failure of respondents to observe due process before dismissing the complainant, We rule and hold that he was illegally terminated. Consequently, he should be reinstated and paid his backwages starting from January 1, 1993 up to the time of his reinstatement and payment of separation pay, should reinstatement not be feasible on account of a strained employer-employee relationship.

As complainant’s income was mixed, (commission and caretaker), he becomes entitled to 13th month pay only in his capacity as caretaker at the last rate of pay given to him.

With respect to separation pay, even workers paid on commission are given separation pay as they are considered employees of the company. Complainant should be adjudged entitled to separation pay reckoned from 1970 up to the time he was dismissed on December 31, 1992 at one-half month pay of his earning as a barber; and as a caretaker the same should be reckoned from 1977 up to December 31, 1992.

As complainant has been assisted by counsel not only in the preparation of the complaint, position paper but in hearings before the Labor Arbiter a quo, attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the money awards should likewise be paid to complainant.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is Vacated and Set Aside and a new one entered in accordance with the above-findings and awards.chanrobles.com.ph : red

SO ORDERED." 4

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied in a Resolution dated June 7, 1995, petitioners filed the instant petition.

The issues for resolution are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and private Respondent.

2. Whether or not private respondent was dismissed from or had abandoned his employment.

Petitioners contend that public respondent gravely erred in declaring that private respondent was their employee. They claim that private respondent was their "partner in trade" whose compensation was based on a sharing arrangement per haircut or shaving job done. They argue that private respondent’s task as caretaker could be considered an employment because the chores are very minimal.

At the outset, we reiterate the doctrine that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact and that the findings thereon by the labor arbiter and the NLRC shall be accorded not only respect but even finality when supported by ample evidence. 5

In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following elements are considered: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers; (2) power of dismissal; (3) the payment of wages by whatever means; and (4) the power to control the worker’s conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration. The power of control refers to the existence of the power and not necessarily to the actual exercise thereof. It is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee; it is enough that the employer has the right to wield that power. 6

Absent a clear showing that petitioners and private respondent had intended to pursue a relationship of industrial partnership, we entertain no doubt that private respondent was employed by petitioners as caretaker-barber. Initially, Petitioners, as new owners of the barbershop, hired private respondent as barber by absorbing the latter in their employ. Undoubtedly, the services performed by private respondent as barber is related to, and in the pursuit of the principal business activity of petitioners. Later on, petitioners tapped private respondent to serve concurrently as caretaker of the shop. Certainly, petitioners had the power to dismiss private respondent being the ones who engaged the services of the latter. In fact, private respondent sued petitioners for illegal dismissal, albeit contested by the latter. As a caretaker, private respondent was paid by petitioners wages in the form of honorarium, originally, at the rate of one-third (1/3) of the shop’s net income but subsequently pegged at a fixed amount per month. As a barber, private respondent earned two-thirds (2/3) of the fee paid per haircut or shaving job done. Furthermore, the following facts indubitably reveal that petitioners controlled private respondent’s work performance, in that: (1) private respondent had to inform petitioners of the things needed in the shop; (2). he could only recommend the hiring of barbers and masseuses, with petitioners having the final decision; (3) he had to be at the shop at 9:00 a.m. and could leave only at 9:00 p.m. because he was the one who opened and closed it, being the one entrusted with the key. 7 These duties were complied with by private respondent upon instructions of petitioners. Moreover, such task was far from being negligible as claimed by petitioners. On the contrary, it was crucial to the business operation of petitioners as shown in the preceding discussion. Hence, there was enough basis to declare private respondent an employee of petitioners. Accordingly, there is no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the labor arbiter and NLRC on the existence of employer-employee relationship between herein private parties.

With regard to the second issue, jurisprudence has laid out the rules regarding abandonment as a just and valid ground for termination of employment. To constitute abandonment, there must be concurrence of the intention to abandon and some overt acts from which it may be inferred that the employee concerned has no more interest in working. 8 In other words, there must be a clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship on the part of the employee. 9

In the case at bar, the labor arbiter was convinced that private respondent was not dismissed but left his work on his own volition because he could no longer bear the incessant squabbles with his co-worker. Nevertheless, public respondent did not give credence to petitioners’ claim that private respondent abandoned his job. On this score, public respondent gravely erred as hereunder discussed.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

At the outset, we must stress that where the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the labor arbiter, the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the questioned findings. 10

In this case, the following circumstances clearly manifest private respondent’s intention to sever his ties with petitioners. First, private respondent even bragged to his co-workers his plan to quit his job at Cesar’s Palace Barbershop and Massage Clinic as borne out by the affidavit executed by his former co-workers. 11 Second, he surrendered the shop’s keys and took away all his things from the shop. Third, he did not report anymore to the shop without giving any valid and justifiable reason for his absence. Fourth, he immediately sought a regular employment in another barbershop, despite previous assurance that he could remain in petitioners’ employ. Fifth, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal without praying for reinstatement.

Moreover, public respondent’s assertion that the institution of the complaint for illegal dismissal manifests private respondent’s lack of intention to abandon his job 12 is untenable. The rule that abandonment of work is inconsistent with the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is not applicable in this case. Such rule applies where the complainant seeks reinstatement as a relief. Corollarily, it has no application where the complainant does not pray for reinstatement and just asks for separation pay instead 13 as in the present case. It goes without saying that the prayer for separation pay, being the alternative remedy to reinstatement, 14 contradicts private respondent’s stance. That he was illegally dismissed is belied by his own pleadings as well as contemporaneous conduct.chanrobles.com.ph : red

We are, therefore, constrained to agree with the findings of the Labor Arbiter that private respondent left his job voluntarily for reasons not attributable to petitioners. It was error and grave abuse of discretion for the NLRC to hold petitioners liable for illegal dismissal of private Respondent.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of public respondent NLRC are reversed and set aside. The decision of the Labor Arbiter dated June 15, 1993, is hereby reinstated. No costs.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles.com : red

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

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Commissioner Oscar M. Abella, and concurred by Presiding Commissioner Musib M. Buat and Commissioner Leon G. Gonzaga Jr..

2. Rollo, pp. 34-37.

3. Id., at 60-61.

4. Id. at 84.

5. AFP Mutual Benefit Association Inc. v. NLRC, 267 SCRA 47, 56 (1997); North Davao Mining Corp. v. NLRC, 254 SCRA 721, 731 (1996); Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises Inc. v. NLRC. 235 SCRA 268, 277 (1994); Loadstar Shipping Co. Inc. v. Gallo, 229 SCRA 654, 660 (1994); Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. v. NLRC, 187 SCRA 694, 699 (1990).

6. Equitable Banking Corporation v. NLRC, 273 SCRA 352, 371 (1997); MAM Realty Development Corporation v. NLRC, 244 SCRA 797, 800-801 (1995); Zanotte Shoes v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 261, 265 (1995).

7. Id. at 56-58.

8. A Prime Security Services Inc. v. NLRC, 220 SCRA 142, 145 (1993); Dagupan Bus Co. Inc. v. NLRC, 191 SCRA 328, 331 (1990).

9. Tan v. NLRC, 271 SCRA 216, 221 (1997); Cañete v. NLRC, 250 SCRA 259, 267 (1995); Reno Foods Inc. v. NLRC, 249 SCRA 379, 386 (1995); Santos v. NLRC, 166 SCRA 759, 764 (1988); Velasco v. Inciong, 164 SCRA 67, 74 (1988).

10. Industrial Timber Corporation v. NLRC, 273 SCRA 200, 209 (1997); Magcalas v. NLRC, 269 SCRA 453, 463 (1997).

11. Rollo, p. 61.

12. Id., at 83.

13. A’ Prime Security Services, Inc. v. NLRC, supra, p. 145.

14. Bombase v. NLRC, 245 SCRA 496, 500 (1995).




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






February-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 84905 February 1, 2000 - REGINO CLEOFAS, ET AL. v. ST. PETER MEMORIAL PARK INC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109193 February 1, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119467 February 1, 2000 - SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA MOLDEX PRODUCTS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120283 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO LUMACANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123358 February 1, 2000 - FCY CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124078 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO Y. BLANCO

  • G.R. No. 124832 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CEPEDA

  • G.R. No. 126397 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MENDOZA CERBITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129670 February 1, 2000 - MANOLET O. LAVIDES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131619-20 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNIE CORTEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131679 February 1, 2000 - CAVITE DEVELOPMENT BANK, ET AL. v. CYRUS LIM, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1359 February 2, 2000 - OFELIA C. CASEÑARES v. ARCHIMEDES D. ALMEIDA, JR.

  • A.C. No. 3808 February 2, 2000 - RAYMUNDO T. MAGDALUYO v. ENRIQUE L. NACE

  • A.M. No. 96-12-429-RTC February 2, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN BRANCH 34, RTC, IRIGA CITY

  • G.R. No. 104314 February 2, 2000 - HEIRS OF NEPOMUCENA PAEZ v. RAMON AM. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114776 February 2, 2000 - MENANDRO B. LAUREANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116194 February 2, 2000 - SUGBUANON RURAL BANK v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121605 February 2, 2000 - PAZ MARTIN JO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122979 February 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIMON ALIPAYO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126586 February 2, 2000 - ALEXANDER VINOYA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131384-87 February 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEGIO NADERA

  • G.R. No. 134169 February 2, 2000 - SADIKUL SAHALI v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135899 February 2, 2000 - AYALA LAND v. MARIETTA VALISNO

  • G.R. No. 81024 February 3, 2000 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103412 February 3, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107943 February 3, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110259 February 3, 2000 - RODOLFO BARRETTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112905 February 3, 2000 - HEIRS OF PEDRO LOPEZ v. HONESTO C. DE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128772 February 3, 2000 - RICARDO C. CADAYONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130598 February 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO MIER

  • G.R. No. 131835 February 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO QUILATON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131818-19 February 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE SANCHA

  • G.R. Nos. 132875-76 February 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1164 February 4, 2000 - VICTORIA R. NABHAN v. ERIC CALDERON

  • G.R. No. 81524 February 4, 2000 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116986 February 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANOR LLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125125-27 February 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELANDRO NICOLAS

  • G.R. No. 112567 February 7, 2000 - DIRECTOR, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116384 February 7, 2000 - VIOLA CRUZ v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134122-27 February 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO ALAMA MAGDATO

  • A.M. No. 001363 February 8, 2000 - WILFREDO F. ARAZA v. MARLON M. GARCIA ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 113095 February 8, 2000 - ELISEO DELA TORRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123541 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOLO BARITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126097 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIA SUELTO

  • G.R. Nos. 131946-47 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO REYES GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132747 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CABANDE

  • G.R. Nos. 137017-18 February 8, 2000 - RAMON G. CUYCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137686 February 8, 2000 - RURAL BANK OF MILAOR (CAMARINES SUR) v. FRANCISCA OCFEMIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139157 February 8, 2000 - ROGELIO PADER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1076 February 9, 2000 - VENUS P. DOUGHLAS v. FRANCISCO H. LOPEZ, JR.

  • A.C. No. 3324 February 9, 2000 - EDWIN VILLARIN, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO SABATE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105902 February 9, 2000 - SEVERINO BARICUATRO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112752 February 9, 2000 - OSS SECURITY & ALLIED SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125341 February 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY BARCELONA

  • G.R. No. 128814 February 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ARAFILES

  • G.R. No. 133509 February 9, 2000 - AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134117 February 9, 2000 - SEN PO EK MARKETING CORP. v. TEODORA PRICE MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135368 February 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ENTILA

  • G.R. No. 136374 February 9, 2000 - FRANCISCA S. BALUYOT v. PAUL E. HOLGANZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140276 February 9, 2000 - FELICIDAD CALLA, ET AL. v. ARTURO MAGLALANG

  • G.R. No. 102967 February 10, 2000 - BIBIANO V. BAÑAS, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114261 February 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERLY FABRO

  • G.R. Nos. 126536-37 February 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLIE ALAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130341 February 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMMEL BALTAR

  • G.R. No. 133259 February 10, 2000 - WENIFREDO FARROL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133547 & 133843 February 10, 2000 - HEIRS OF ANTONIO PAEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134568 February 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULOGIO IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. 138639 February 10, 2000 - CITY-LITE REALTY CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117204 February 11, 2000 - MAGDALITA Y. TANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120646 February 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR DANDO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1534 February 15, 2000 - GERONIMO GROSPE, ET AL. v. LAURO G. SANDOVAL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1187 February 15, 2000 - PACIFICA A. MILLARE v. REDENTOR B. VALERA

  • A.M. No. P-00-1362 February 15, 2000 - ORLANDO LAPEÑA v. JOVITO PAMARANG

  • A.M. No. 99-11-06-SC February 15, 2000 - RE: ABSENCE WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE (AWOL) OF ANTONIO MACALINTAL

  • G.R. No. 103506 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO TOLIBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108205 February 15, 2000 - BRIGIDA F. DEE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113940 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIELITO BULURAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114740 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO GALAM

  • G.R. No. 115508 February 15, 2000 - ALEJANDRO AGASEN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115962 February 15, 2000 - DOMINADOR REGALADO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122954 February 15, 2000 - NORBERTO P. FERIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124245 February 15, 2000 - ANTONIO F. NAVARRETE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126996 February 15, 2000 - CESARIO VELASQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129577-80 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BULU CHOWDURY

  • G.R. Nos. 130203-04 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO MANGILA

  • G.R. No. 130606 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELRANIE MARTINEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 131592-93 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JULIAN CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 133909 February 15, 2000 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. MARS CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. Nos. 136282 & 137470 February 15, 2000 - FRANCISCO D. OCAMPO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137287 February 15, 2000 - REBECCA VIADO NON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1473 February 16, 2000 - JESSICA GOODMAN v. LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA

  • G.R. No. 127710 February 16, 2000 - AZUCENA B. GARCIA v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134939 February 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BATO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1459 February 17, 2000 - VICTOR D. ONG v. VOLTAIRE Y. ROSALES

  • A.C. Nos. 4426 & 4429 February 17, 2000 - RAMON SAURA, ET AL. v. LALAINE LILIBETH AGDEPPA

  • G.R. Nos. 47013, 60647 & 60958-59 February 17, 2000 - ANDRES LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111286 February 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIL DACIBAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115687 February 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO QUILLOSA

  • G.R. No. 122876 February 17, 2000 - CHENIVER DECO PRINT TECHNICS CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129887 February 17, 2000 - TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP. v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS and MORTGAGE BANK

  • G.R. Nos. 131872-73 February 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHEN TIZ CHANG. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132344 February 17, 2000 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. ROMEO A. JADER

  • G.R. No. 132555 February 17, 2000 - ELISEO MALOLOS, ET AL. v. AIDA S. DY

  • G.R. No. 133025 February 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RADEL GALLARDE

  • G.R. No. 133507 February 17, 2000 - EUDOSIA DAEZ AND/OR HER HEIRS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118821 February 18, 2000 - BAI UNGGIE D. ABDULA, ET AL. v. JAPAL M. GUIANI

  • G.R. No. 122346 February 18, 2000 - PHIL. TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123164 February 18, 2000 - NICANOR DULLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126351 February 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 126481 February 18, 2000 - EMILY M. MAROHOMBSAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132217 February 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO TOREJOS

  • G.R. No. 132964 February 18, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID REY GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 134932 February 18, 2000 - VITO BESO v. RITA ABALLE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120 February 21, 2000 - NBI v. RAMON B. REYES

  • G.R. No. 129056 February 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO MENDIONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117079 February 22, 2000 - PILIPINAS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118670 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124706 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO EREÑO

  • G.R. No. 127598 February 22, 2000 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LEONARDO QUISUMBING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128883 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR GALIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130667 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO VIRTUCIO JR.

  • G.R. No. 131943 February 22, 2000 - VIRGINIA G. RAMORAN v. JARDINE CMG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 134246 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO SAN ANDRES

  • G.R. No. 135829 February 22, 2000 - BAYANI BAUTISTA v. PATRICIA ARANETA

  • G.R. No. 136021 February 22, 2000 - BENIGNA SECUYA, ET AL. v. GERARDA M. VDA. DE SELMA

  • G.R. No. 102667 February 23, 2000 - AMADO J. LANSANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 105630 February 23, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE P. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114243 February 23, 2000 - ISAGANI MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115734 February 23, 2000 - RUBEN LOYOLA ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119268 February 23, 2000 - ANGEL JARDIN, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121980 February 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GONZALO PENASO

  • G.R. No. 125936 February 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131641 February 23, 2000 - NATIVIDAD P. NAZARENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132738 February 23, 2000 - PCGG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133715 February 23, 2000 - DOUGLAS R. VILLAVERT v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 139599 February 23, 2000 - ANICETO SABBUN MAGUDDATU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1368 February 28, 2000 - ABELARDO H. SANTOS v. AURORA T. LARANANG

  • G.R. Nos. 95891-92 February 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSMUNDO FUERTES ,ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 112160 February 28, 2000 - OSMUNDO S. CANLAS,ET.AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 113907 February 28, 2000 - (MSMG-UWP, ET AL. v. CRESENCIOJ. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 124680-81 February 28, 2000 - IMELDA R. MARCOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126443 February 28, 2000 - FLORDESVINDA C. MADARIETA v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127480 February 28, 2000 - CONCHITA L. ABELLERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128010 February 28, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128812 February 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. THADEOS ENGUITO

  • G.R. No. 129074 February 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LOMERIO

  • G.R. No. 129761 February 28, 2000 - CORAL POINT DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131724 February 28, 2000 - MILLENIUM INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL CORP. v. JACKSON TAN

  • G.R. No. 137887 February 28, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DAMIAN ERMITAÑO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 138377 February 28, 2000 - CONCEPCION V. AMAGAN, ET AL. v. TEODORICO T. MARAYAG

  • G.R. No. 139288 February 28, 2000 - LEONIDA S. ROMERO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • AC No. 4834 February 29, 2000 - FELICIDAD L. COTTAM v. ESTRELLA O. LAYSA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1153 February 29, 2000 - MAGDALENA M. HUGGLAND* v. JOSE C. LANTIN

  • G.R. No. 112392 February 29, 2000 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.AL

  • G.R. No. 115984 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO GAMER

  • G.R. Nos. 116009-10 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODERICK LORIEGA, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 118828 & 119371 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY LAGARTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123102 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MADELO ESPINA

  • G.R. No. 125290 February 29, 2000 - MARIO BASCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130969 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131820 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. 133694 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS CLAUDIO

  • G.R. No. 136283 February 29, 2000 - VIEWMASTER CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. REYNALDO Y. MAULIT, ET AL.