Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1995 > July 1995 Decisions > G.R. No. 110321 July 7, 1995 - HILARIO VALLENDE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 110321. July 7, 1995.]

HILARIO VALLENDE, MARIO J. ESPARTERO, BENJAMIN R. BETITO, LARRY DORMIDO, ROGELIO ALVAREZ, THELMO MORIN, AMER TINOSAN, ALAN CRISTALES, EDWIN TOLENTINO, AND EVELINO DAGLE, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, (Fourth Division, Cebu City, and TOP CENTER PROCESSING BACOLOD, INC. and/or JOSE SEPULDEVA, Manager, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF LABOR ARBITER AND NLRC, RESPECTED. — Factual findings of quasi judicial agencies, like NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality when such findings are supported by substantial evidence. The truth or falsehood of alleged facts is not for the Supreme Court to re-examine. The probative value of the evidence presented by the parties may no longer be inquired into. This Court shall exercise its powers of review only when the inference or conclusion arrived at is manifestly erroneous (Sunset View Condominium Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission 228 SCRA 466 [1993]). We agree with the findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC that there was sufficient evidence to show that petitioners committed the pilferage. It is not disputed that the information as to how the prawns were pilfered came from petitioners Amer Tinosan, Alan Cristales Edwin Tolentino and Evelino Dagle, who did so on their own free will and volition. The details by which the pilferage was committed can only be supplied by one who was also involved in the anomaly.

2. LABOR LAW; DISMISSAL; GROUNDS; LOSS OF CONFIDENCE; PROOF REQUIRED THEREIN. — Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal does not entail proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employees’ misconduct. It is enough that there be "some basis" for such loss of confidence or that ‘the employer has reasonable grounds to believe, if not to entertain the moral conviction that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of trust and confidence demanded of his position" (Dole Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission 123 SCRA 673 [1983]).

3. ID.; ID.; DUE PROCESS; FAILURE TO FURNISH PARTY COPY OF SUPPLEMENTAL POSITION PAPER WITH ANNEXES, NOT FATAL; CASE AT BAR. — We have held in Sunset View Condominium Corporation, supra, that "the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, x x x an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of." The failure of Top Center to furnish petitioners a copy of the supplemental position paper with annexes was not fatal as to invalidate the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Article 221 of the Labor Code provides that" (i)n any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process." Besides, this defect was cured when petitioners were allowed to appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter and later to file a motion for reconsideration with NLRC (General Milling Corporation v. Torres, 196 SCRA 215 [1991]).


D E C I S I O N


QUIASON, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari which seeks to annul and set aside the Decision dated March 30, 1993 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the Decision dated November 18, 1992 of the Labor Arbiter finding that petitioners were validly dismissed for loss of trust and confidence.

We dismiss the petition.

I


Petitioners were employees of respondent Top Center Processing, Incorporated (Top Center) which was engaged in buying, processing and exporting of prawns. Petitioners belonged to the Charlie Team harvest crew whose duties were to sort out the prawns after harvest according to size and weight, pack and crate them to be transported to the Top Center processing plant in Bago City, Negros Occidental. The prawns, which do not meet the standards for packing, were placed in a separate chilling box and also sent to the processing plant.

In August 1991, Top Center received information that pilferages were being committed by some harvest crews by replacing the calibrated weighing scale it provided with a defective one, resulting in two-to-three kilos excess for every 25 kilos of prawns weighed. On August 5, 1991, a memorandum was issued by Top Center to all its workers warning them that it had knowledge of the pilferages.

On December 29, 1991, Petitioners, except Pablito Jimenez, harvested prawns from the farm of Benjamin Salvador.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

On February 10, 1992, petitioner Amer Tinosan went to the Top Center office to claim his salary for December 16-31, 1991. Tinosan, however, discovered that his salary had been withdrawn by co-petitioner Larry Dormido, allegedly upon his written authorization. Tinosan denied such authorization. Upon investigation by the plant superintendent, Elizer Balbin, Dormido admitted that he did it upon the instructions of petitioner Mario Espartero, the chief of the Charlie Team. In that investigation, Tinosan informed Balbin that he was resigning because some members of the harvest crew were after him for his failure to deliver to them their share in the sale of prawns they had pilfered during their harvest of Benjamin Salvador’s farm on December 29, 1991.

On January 12, 1992, petitioners Evelino Dagle, Edwin Tolentino and Alan Cristales came to Balbin’s office and complained that they were no longer fetched by the company vehicle during the harvest. When Balbin mentioned the incident on December 29, 1991, the three petitioners volunteered additional information regarding the pilferage. Balbin then went to the plant site at Calunangan, Bago City and prepared a memorandum suspending all members of the Charlie Team pending investigation of the incident. A report was rendered by Balbin to the management regarding the information he received and the action he had taken.

On January 16, 1992, petitioners were ordered to explain in writing within 48 hours why they should not be dismissed for gross misconduct.

On January 29, 1992, petitioners were formally investigated and given the opportunity to dispute the charges against them.

On February 7, 1992, petitioners received notices of termination from Top Center’s personnel manager. As a result thereof, petitioners filed separate cases for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and non-payment of their overtime, service incentive leave, night shift differential and separation pay against Top Center and its manager, Jose Sepulveda, with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, Bacolod City. All these cases were consolidated.

On November 18, 1992, the Labor Arbiter rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondents TOP CENTER PROCESSING, INCORPORATED and JOSE SEPULVEDA, manager, are hereby ordered to reinstate complainant PABLITO JIMENEZ to his former position without loss of seniority and other rights and with back wages, without qualification and deduction in the amount of TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE AND 53/100 (P24,771.53).

"All other claims are hereby ordered dismissed for lack of merit." (Rollo, p. 49)

On March 30, 1993, NLRC rendered its decision affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision. A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioners but this was dismissed by NLRC in a resolution dated April 29, 1993.

Hence, this petition wherein the main issue to be resolved is whether NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that petitioners were validly dismissed on the ground of lack of trust and confidence.

Petitioners claim that the report on their alleged involvement in the pilferage of prawns has not been substantiated by the evidence, hence, there was no basis for imputing charges of theft against them.

Factual findings of quasi—judicial agencies, like NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality when such findings are supported by substantial evidence. The truth or falsehood of alleged facts is not for the Supreme Court to re-examine. The probative value of the evidence presented by the parties may no longer be inquired into. This Court shall exercise its powers of review only when the inference or conclusion arrived at is manifestly erroneous (Sunset View Condominium Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 228 SCRA 466 [1993]).

We agree with the findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC that there was sufficient evidence to show that petitioners committed the pilferage. It is not disputed that the information as to how the prawns were pilfered came from petitioners Amer Tinosan, Alan Cristales, Edwin Tolentino and Evelino Dagle, who did so on their own free will and volition. The details by which the pilferage was committed can only be supplied by one who was also involved in the anomaly.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal does not entail proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employees’ misconduct. It is enough that there be ‘some basis’ for such loss of confidence or that ‘the employer has reasonable grounds to believe, if not to entertain the moral conviction that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of trust and confidence demanded of his position" (Dole Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 123 SCRA 673 [1983]).

Petitioners asseverate that they were not furnished a copy of the supplemental position paper with annexes by the Top Center, which resulted in a denial of their opportunity to present their side of the controversy.

We have held in Sunset View Condominium Corporation, supra, that "the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, . . . an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of" (at p. 472).

The failure of Top Center to furnish petitioners a copy of the supplemental position paper with annexes was not fatal as to invalidate the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Article 221 of the Labor Code provides that" (i)n any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use the every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process." Besides, this defect was cured when petitioners were allowed to appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter and later to file a motion for reconsideration with NLRC (General Milling Corporation v. Torres, 196 SCRA 215 [1991]).

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.




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






July-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-835 July 3, 1995 - GERARDO C. ALVARADO v. LILY A. LAQUINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 107748 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO SAPURCO

  • G.R. No. 109248 July 3, 1995 - GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110558 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELEDONIO B. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112279 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT ALBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114698 July 3, 1995 - WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115304 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLAND L. MELOSANTOS

  • G.R. No. 110240 July 4, 1995 - ENJAY INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109036 July 5, 1995 - BARTOLOME F. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2747 July 6, 1995 - GODOFREDO A. VILLALON v. JIMENEZ B. BUENDIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1008 July 6, 1995 - FLORENTINA BILAG-RIVERA v. CRISANTO FLORA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1026 July 6, 1995 - VICTOR BASCO v. DAMASO GREGORIO

  • G.R. No. 100912 July 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY A. CRISTOBAL

  • G.R. Nos. 103560 & 103599 July 6, 1995 - GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109166 July 6, 1995 - HERNAN R. LOPEZ, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112973-76 July 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PAGCU, JR.

  • G.R. No. 110321 July 7, 1995 - HILARIO VALLENDE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112629 July 7, 1995 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118644 July 7, 1995 - EPIMACO A. VELASCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102930 July 10, 1995 - BONIFACIO MONTILLA PEÑA v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119055 July 10, 1995 - ROY RODILLAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • CBD Case No. 251 July 11, 1995 - ADELINA T. VILLANUEVA v. TERESITA STA. ANA

  • G.R. No. 109370 July 11, 1995 - ROGELIO PARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110015 July 11, 1995 - MANILA BAY CLUB CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112046 July 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY ONG CO

  • G.R. No. 115245 July 11, 1995 - JUANITO C. PILAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTION

  • G.R. No. 116008 July 11, 1995 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79896 July 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN L. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114167 July 12, 1995 - COASTWISE LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114186 July 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR R. ERNI

  • Adm. Case No. 3283 July 13, 1995 - RODOLFO MILLARE v. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ-93-806 & MTJ-93-863 July 13, 1995 - ERLINO LITIGIO, ET AL. v. CELESTINO V. DICON

  • Bar Matter No. 712 July 13, 1995 - IN RE: AL C. ARGOSINO

  • G.R. No. 106769 July 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO WEDING

  • G.R. No. 109573 July 13, 1995 - SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110580 July 13, 1995 - MANUEL BANSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110930 July 13, 1995 - OSCAR LEDESMA AND COMPANY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116049 July 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1048 July 14, 1995 - WELLINGTON REYES v. SALVADOR M. GAA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-90-400 July 14, 1995 - SUSIMO MOROÑO v. AURELIO J.V. LOMEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-818 July 14, 1995 - ENRIQUITO CABILAO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-932 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. MANGALINDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-963 July 14, 1995 - MARILOU NAMA MORENO v. JOSE C. BERNABE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1012 July 14, 1995 - ERNESTO G. OÑASA, JR. v. EUSEBIO J. VILLARAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1030 July 14, 1995 - GABRIEL C. ARISTORENAS, ET AL. v. ROGELIO S. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1075 July 14, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LOLITA A. GRECIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1086 July 14, 1995 - ALFERO C. BAGANO v. ARTURO A. PANINSORO

  • G.R. Nos. L-66211 & L-70528-35 July 14, 1995 - ARTURO Q. SALIENTES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82220, 82251 & 83059 July 14, 1995 - PABLITO MENESES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88384 July 14, 1995 - FEDERATION OF LAND REFORM FARMERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91494 July 14, 1995 - CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92167-68 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92660 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO MORICO

  • G.R. No. 96489 July 14, 1995 - NICOLAS G. SINTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97251-52 July 14, 1995 - JOVENCIO MINA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 97435 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TEVES

  • G.R. No. 98920 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. IGNACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101135 July 14, 1995 - TEODORO RANCES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101286 July 14, 1995 - GIL RUBIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101875 July 14, 1995 - CASIANO A. NAVARRO III v. ISRAEL D. DAMASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102297 July 14, 1995 - NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH OF GOD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102993 July 14, 1995 - CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104639 July 14, 1995 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104682 July 14, 1995 - CAPITOL WIRELESS, INC. v. VICENTE S. BATE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105763 July 14, 1995 - LORENDO QUINONES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106279 July 14, 1995 - SULPICIO LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108870 July 14, 1995 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109680 July 14, 1995 - DIEGO RAPANUT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111515 July 14, 1995 - JACKSON BUILDING CONDOMINIUM CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112399 July 14, 1995 - AMADO S. BAGATSING v. COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112679 July 14, 1995 - COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113448 July 14, 1995 - DANILO Q. MILITANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113578 July 14, 1995 - SUPLICIO LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118597 July 14, 1995 - JOKER P. ARROYO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-997 July 17, 1995 - CHRISTOPHER CORDOVA, ET AL. v. RICARDO F. TORNILLA

  • G.R. No. 53877 July 17, 1995 - GREGORIO LABITAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91987 July 17, 1995 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. FRANKLIN DRILON

  • G.R. No. 108891 July 17, 1995 - JRS BUSINESS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109613 July 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MAHINAY

  • G.R. No. 109809 July 17, 1995 - VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110910 July 17, 1995 - NATIONAL SUGAR TRADING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111797 July 17, 1995 - CARLOS ANG GOBONSENG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112060 July 17, 1995 - NORBI H. EDDING v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112127 July 17, 1995 - CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112230 July 17, 1995 - NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113917 July 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIA M. CABACANG

  • G.R. No. 118910 July 17, 1995 - KILOSBAYAN, INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL L. MORATO

  • G.R. No. 119326 July 17, 1995 - NARCISO CANSINO v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. No. 106539 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORTILLANO NAMAYAN

  • G.R. No. 108789 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABE ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114681 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD AGUSTIN

  • G.R. No. 115115 July 18, 1995 - CONRAD AND COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107439 July 20, 1995 - MICHAEL T. UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-114382 July 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ACOB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115884 July 20, 1995 - CJC TRADING, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117932 July 20, 1995 - AVON DALE GARMENTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106425 & 106431-32 July 21, 1995 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110591 July 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIBURCIO E. BACULI

  • G.R. No. 107495 July 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLO Y. UYCOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110106 July 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO R. MONTIERO

  • G.R. No. 111905 July 31, 1995 - ORIENTAL MINDORO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.