Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1995 > July 1995 Decisions > G.R. No. 108891 July 17, 1995 - JRS BUSINESS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 108891. July 17, 1995.]

JRS BUSINESS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Fifth Division) and ROBERT A. NACARIO, Respondents.

Valdez, Domondon & Associates for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for public Respondent.

Teotimo D. Eiaco, Sr. for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; HEARSAY; WHERE WITNESSES’ AFFIDAVITS NOT VERIFIED AND SIGNATORIES TO THE EXHIBIT NOT PRESENTED. — The "Affidavit/Testimony" implicating private respondent to the anomaly and the written statement of other witnesses were not verified. Neither those who signed as witnesses to said exhibit were presented before the Labor Arbiter. The said exhibits were therefore hearsay and of no probative values.

2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. — With regard to the information filed against private respondent in connection with cash shortage in the labor case, the outcome of the preliminary investigation cannot affect the proceedings before the NLRC, which has to review the decision of the Labor Arbiter on the basis of the evidence on record, not on the basis of the evidence submitted to the City Prosecutor.

3. ID.; ID.; PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION; INDEMNITY WHERE MAXIMUM 30-DAY PERIOD VIOLATED. — Petitioner, having violated the maximum 30-day preventive suspension under Section 4, Rule XIV, Book of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, must indemnify private respondent in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00).


D E C I S I O N


QUIASON, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside the Resolution of the Fifth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated October 12, 1992 (which reversed the Decision dated September 20, 1989 of Labor Arbiter Conchita J. Martinez), and its Resolution dated January 18, 1993 (which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

I


Petitioner employed private respondent on April 7, 1980. Subsequently, private respondent was promoted as Station Manager of petitioner’s Davao branch office.

In September 1988, Fernando T. dela Cerna, petitioner’s Internal Auditor, conducted an audit of its Davao office. The audit revealed a shortage totalling P145,564.33 arising from undeposited cash sales and unexplained cash shortages from charge sales (Rollo p. 67).

On the basis that it was the responsibility of petitioner to deposit the proceeds of sales with the office cashier, Milady J. Munoz, petitioner’s Treasurer, called private respondent’s attention to the cash shortage. He was directed to explain in writing within 72 hours from receipt of the notice why he should not be relieved from his position (Rollo, p. 70).

Four days later or on September 27, 1988, private respondent was informed by Ernesto A. Gonzales, petitioner’s Personnel Manager, of the appointment of Fernando T. dela Cerna as officer-in-charge of the Davao office. He was further instructed to report to dela Cerna for his new duties pending petitioner’s final decision regarding the result of the audit report (Rollo, p. 71).

On October 2, 1988, the employees of petitioner: namely, Elizabeth Paulino, the office cashier, her husband, Jaime, and Darwin Solis, signed statements which detailed the irregularities committed by private respondent and his wife (Rollo, p. 72).

On October 12, 1988, private respondent was directed by Ernesto A. Gonzales to go on leave without pay effective October 15, 1988 until further notice, in view of the on-going investigation (Rollo, p. 76).

On October 13, 1988, private respondent wrote petitioner a letter rebutting the allegations contained in the affidavits submitted against him. He alleged that he merely requested his wife to assist him in the preparation of reports as she was a former employee of petitioner. Furthermore, he denied any participation in the cash shortage (Rollo, pp. 79-80).chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

On November 17, 1988, private respondent and his wife received separate demand letters for the immediate restitution of the amount of P145,564.33 (Rollo, pp. 77-78).

On February 6, 1988, considering his indefinite forced leave without pay as a constructive dismissal, private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. IX of Davao City for illegal dismissal, reinstatement with back wages, vacation and sick leave pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees (Rollo, p. 50).

On March 17, 1989, petitioner filed its Answer wherein it denied that private respondent was constructively or illegally dismissed as the records of its Davao office and the affidavits submitted by the Paulino spouses and Solis were still being evaluated in Manila; that private respondent allowed his wife to gain access to confidential matters; and that he had not answered the inter-office memoranda and demand letter sent to him (Rollo, p. 55).

Due to the failure of the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement, the Labor Arbiter directed them to submit their position papers.

On September 20, 1989, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision, dismissing the complaint of private respondent for lack of merit (Rollo, p. 40).

Private respondent then appealed to NLRC. On October 12, 1992, NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ruled that private respondent was illegally dismissed. However, instead of reinstatement, NLRC merely granted private respondent separation pay at the rate of one month salary for every year of service.

In issuing such order, NLRC took into consideration "the realities of the situation in the instant case [that] the reinstatement of complainant would not be conducive to industrial peace and harmony. Complainant is a managerial employee and his continuance in the service would naturally involve the continued trust and confidence in him by respondent" (Rollo, p. 38).

Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied (Rollo, p. 38).

Hence, this petition.

II


There is a divergence of views between the Labor Arbiter and NLRC regarding the fitness of private respondent to remain in the employ of petitioner as a Station Manager, particularly on the issue of inadequacy of the evidence against private Respondent.

We agree with NLRC. The so-called "Affidavit/Testimony" of Elizabeth Paulino implicating private respondent to the anomaly (Rollo, p. 72), was not verified or under oath. Neither Paulino nor those who signed as witnesses to said exhibit were presented before the Labor Arbiter. Likewise, the written statements of Jaime Paulino and Darwin Solis (Rollo, pp. 74-75) were unverified and the two signatories were not called to testify before the Labor Arbiter. The said exhibits were therefore hearsay and of no probative values. On top of this, Elizabeth Paulino executed an affidavit absolving private respondent and his wife of any participation with respect to the cash shortage. This affidavit is noteworthy because the affiant admitted sole liability for the cash shortage.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Fernando T. dela Cerna, the Internal Auditor of petitioner, found private respondent’s "explanation reasonable except items (sic) pertaining to the amount of cash shortage since appellee [petitioner herein] would still conduct further verification and/or investigation (Rollo, p. 26). Petitioner, in its answer filed with the Labor Arbiter, stated that it "decided to further study in detail and scrutinize the records of the Davao Branch" regarding the liability of private respondent (Rollo, p. 31).

The NLRC also found the other charges levelled against private respondent to be without basis and accepted his explanation thereof as satisfactory. It took note of the long and dedicated service of private respondent to the company (Rollo, pp. 31, 34-35). It belittled the charges that private respondent allowed his wife to go to the branch office to help him prepare his reports and that he brought to the office his own air-conditioning unit (Rollo, pp. 32-35) saying that it is common practice for housewives to have "their presence felt" in the offices of their husbands and for executives to bring their own appliances to their office.

Petitioner claims that the City Prosecutor decided to file an information against private respondent in connection with the cash shortage in the labor case. The outcome of the preliminary investigation before the City Prosecutor cannot affect the proceedings before the NLRC, which has to review the decision of the Labor Arbiter on the basis of the evidence on record, not on the basis of the evidence submitted to the City Prosecutor.

It appears that Elizabeth Paulino executed an affidavit before the City Attorney absolving private respondent on the basis of which the City Prosecutor dismissed the charges against private Respondent. Petitioner claims that Elizabeth Paulino retracted her affidavit and the City Prosecutor decided to file criminal charges against private Respondent. This evidence cannot be used to alter the decision of the NLRC.

Also presented as an issue was petitioner’s directive to private respondent of October 12, 1988 to go on leave without pay to pave the way for the investigation of the charges against him.

Sections 3 and 4, Rule XIV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Termination of Employment, provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 3. Preventive suspension. — The employer may place the worker concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers.

"Section 4. Period of suspension. — No preventive suspension shall last longer than 30 days. The employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in his former or in a substantially equivalent position or the employer may extend the period of suspension provided that during the period of extension, he pays the wages and other benefits due to the worker. In such case, the worker shall not be bound to reimburse the amount paid to him during the extension if the employer decides, after completion of the hearing, to dismiss the worker."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner having violated the maximum 30-day preventive suspension under Section 4, Rule XIV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, a sanction is imposed on him in consonance with our ruling in Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 187 SCRA 694 (1990). Petitioner must indemnify private respondent in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00).chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

WHEREFORE, the Decision of National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner is ordered to indemnify private respondent in the amount of P1,000.00. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on March 15, 1993 is LIFTED.

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.