11/1/2019 G.R. No. 116363 December 10, 1999 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

ET AL. : DECEMBER 1999 - PHILIPPINE SUPRE…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > December 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 116363 December
10, 1999 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 116363. December 10, 1999.]

SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS,

JESUS PONCE, and ELIZABETH PONCE, Respondents.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This controversy is between a mortgagor who alienated the mortgaged property without the consent of
the mortgagee, on the one hand, and the assignee of the mortgagee to whom the latter assigned his
credit without notice to the mortgagor, on the other hand. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
Sometime in 1975, respondent spouses Atty. Jesus and Elizabeth Ponce bought on installment a Holden
Torana vehicle from C. R. Tecson Enterprises. They executed a promissory note and a chattel mortgage
on the vehicle dated December 24, 1975 in favor of the C. R. Tecson Enterprises to secure payment of
the note. The mortgage was registered both in the Registry of Deeds and the Land Transportation Office.
On the same date, C.R. Tecson Enterprises, in turn, executed a deed of assignment of said promissory
note and chattel mortgage in favor of Filinvest Credit Corporation with the conformity of respondent
spouses. The latter were aware of the endorsement of the note and the mortgage to Filinvest as they in
fact availed of its financing services to pay for the car. In 1976, respondent spouses transferred and
delivered the vehicle to Conrado R. Tecson by way of sale with assumption of mortgage. Subsequently, in
1978, Filinvest assigned all its rights and interest over the same promissory note and chattel mortgage to
petitioner Servicewide Specialists Inc. without notice to respondent spouses. Due to the failure of
respondent spouses to pay the installments under the promissory note from October 1977 to March
1978, and despite demands to pay the same or to return the vehicle, petitioner was constrained to file
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila on May 22, 1978 a complaint for replevin with damages against
them, docketed as Civil Case No. 115567. In their answer, respondent spouses denied any liability
claiming they had already returned the car to Conrado Tecson pursuant to the Deed of Sale with
Assumption of Mortgage. Thus, they filed a third party complaint against Conrado Tecson praying that in
case they are adjudged liable to petitioner, Conrado Tecson should reimburse them.

After trial, the lower court found respondent spouses jointly and solidarily liable to petitioner, however,
the third party defendant Conrado Tecson was ordered to reimburse the respondent spouses for the sum
that they would pay to petitioner. 1 On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the judgment
of the court a quo on the principal ground that respondent spouses were not notified of the assignment of
the promissory note and chattel mortgage to petitioner. 2 Hence, this petition for review.

The resolution of the petition hinges on whether the assignment of a credit requires notice to the debtor
in order to bind him. More specifically, is the debtor-mortgagor who sold the property to another entitled
to notice of the assignment of credit made by the creditor to another party such that if the debtor was
not notified of the assignment, he can no longer be held liable since he already alienated the property?
Conversely, is the consent of the creditor-mortgagee necessary when the debtor-mortgagor alienates the
ChanRobles Intellectual Property property to a third person?
Division
Only notice to the debtor of the assignment of credit is required. His consent is not required. In contrast,

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1999decemberdecisions.php?id=1092 1/5
11/1/2019 G.R. No. 116363 December 10, 1999 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : DECEMBER 1999 - PHILIPPINE SUPRE…
December-1999
Jurisprudence                  The next question is whether respondent spouses needed to notify or secure the consent of petitioner’s
A.M. No. 96-7-257-RTC December 2, 1999 - RE:
REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT AND PHYSICAL
INVENTORY OF PENDING CASES IN THE MTCC
G.R. Nos. 95751-52 December 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JAIME TUMARU, ET AL.
G.R. No. 116996 December 2, 1999 - ANDRES
VILLALON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 120493-94 & 117692 December 2, 1999 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO OCUMEN
G.R. No. 121204 December 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO BARELLANO
G.R. No. 126670 December 2, 1999 - ERNESTO T.
PACHECO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 127899 December 2, 1999 - MARILYN C.
SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129213 December 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. GERRY PEREZ
G.R. No. 129339 December 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. MARIO SANTIAGO
G.R. No. 131540 December 2, 1999 - BETTY KING
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. 97399 December 3, 1999 - SECON
PHILIPPINES v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 120634 December 3, 1999 - FLORA
DORONILA-TIOSECO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 126661 December 3, 1999 - JOSE S.
ANDAYA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 127639 December 3, 1999 - SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION, ET AL. v. ALFREDO ETCUBAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128888 December 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. CHARITO ISUG MAGBANUA
G.R. No. 130985 December 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO DE LEON
G.R. No. 136500 December 3, 1999 - CONRADO R.
ISIDRO v. NISSAN MOTOR PHIL.
G.R. No. 111630 December 6, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. NESTOR O. JUACHON
G.R. No. 112998 December 6, 1999 - FRANCIS
HERVAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 117711 December 6, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. GENNY NABLO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 125834 December 6, 1999 - VIOLETA
SANTIAGO VILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1999decemberdecisions.php?id=1092
consent of the creditor-mortgagee to the alienation of the mortgaged property is necessary in order to
bind said creditor. To evade liability, respondent spouses invoked Article 1626 of the Civil Code which
provides that "the debtor who, before having knowledge of the assignment, pays his creditor shall be
released from the obligation." They argue that they were not notified of the assignment made to
petitioner. This provision, however, is applicable only where the debtor pays the creditor prior to
acquiring knowledge of the latter’s assignment of his credit. It does not apply, nor is it relevant, to cases
of non-payment after the debtor came to know of the assignment of credit. This is precisely so since the
debtor did not make any payment after the assignment. chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
In the case at bar, what is relevant is not the assignment of credit between petitioner and its assignor,
but the knowledge or consent of the creditor’s assignee to the debtor-mortgagor’s sale of the property to
another.
When the credit was assigned to petitioner, only notice to but not the consent of the debtor-mortgagor
was necessary to bind the latter. Applying Article 1627 of the Civil Code, 3 the assignment made to
petitioner includes the accessory rights such as the mortgage. Article 2141, on the other hand, states
that the provisions concerning a contract of pledge shall be applicable to a chattel mortgage, such as the
one at bar, insofar as there is no conflict with Act No. 1508, the Chattel Mortgage Law. As provided in
Article 2096 in relation to Article 2141 of the Civil Code, 4 a thing pledged may be alienated by the
pledgor or owner "with the consent of the pledgee." This provision is in accordance with Act No. 1508
which provides that "a mortgagor of personal property shall not sell or pledge such property, or any part
thereof, mortgaged by him without the consent of the mortgagee in writing on the back of the mortgage
and on the margin of the record thereof in the office where such mortgage is recorded." 5 Although this
provision in the chattel mortgage has been expressly repealed by Article 367 of the Revised Penal Code,
yet under Article 319 (2) of the same Code, the sale of the thing mortgaged may be made provided that
the mortgagee gives his consent and that the same is recorded. 6 In any case, applying by analogy
Article 2128 of the Civil Code 7 to a chattel mortgage, it appears that a mortgage credit may be alienated
or assigned to a third person. Since the assignee of the credit steps into the shoes of the creditor-
mortgagee to whom the chattel was mortgaged, it follows that the assignee’s consent is necessary in
order to bind him of the alienation of the mortgaged thing by the debtor-mortgagor. This is tantamount
to a novation. As the new assignee, petitioner’s consent is necessary before respondent spouses’
alienation of the vehicle can be considered as binding against third persons. Petitioner is considered a
third person with respect to the sale with mortgage between respondent spouses and third party
defendant Conrado Tecson.
In this case, however, since the alienation by the respondent spouses of the vehicle occurred prior to the
assignment of credit to petitioner, it follows that the former were not bound to obtain the consent of the
latter as it was not yet an assignee of the credit at the time of the alienation of the mortgaged vehicle.
predecessor to the alienation of the vehicle. The sale with assumption of mortgage made by respondent
spouses is tantamount to a substitution of debtors. In such case, mere notice to the creditor is not
enough, his consent is always necessary as provided in Article 1293 of the Civil Code. 8 Without such
consent by the creditor, the alienation made by respondent spouses is not binding on the former. On the
other hand, Articles 1625, 9 1626 10 and 1627 of the Civil Code on assignment of credits do not require
the debtor’s consent for the validity thereof and so as to render him liable to the assignee. The law
speaks not of consent but of notice to the debtor, the purpose of which is to inform the latter that from
the date of assignment he should make payment to the assignee and not to the original creditor. Notice
is thus for the protection of the assignee because before said date, payment to the original creditor is
valid.
When Tecson Enterprises assigned the promissory note and the chattel mortgage to Filinvest, it was
made with respondent spouses’ tacit approval. When Filinvest in turn, as assignee, assigned it further to
petitioner, the latter should have notified the respondent spouses of the assignment in order to bind
them. This, they failed to do. The testimony of petitioner’s witness that notice of assignment was sent to
respondent spouses was stricken off the record. Having asserted the affirmative on the issue of notice,
petitioner should have substantiated its allegations in order to obtain a favorable judgment. In civil
cases, the burden is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either side. 11 Being
the plaintiff in the trial below, petitioner must establish its case, relying on the strength of its own
evidence and not upon the weakness of that of its opponent. 12 The consent to the assignment given by
respondent spouses to Filinvest cannot be construed as the spouses’ knowledge of the assignment to
petitioner precisely because at the time of the assignment to the latter, the spouses had earlier sold the
vehicle to another. chanrobles law library : red
One thing, however, that militates against the posture of respondent spouses is that although they are
not bound to obtain the consent of the petitioner before alienating the property, they should have
obtained the consent of Filinvest since they were already aware of the assignment to the latter. So that,
insofar as Filinvest is concerned, the debtor is still respondent spouses because of the absence of its
consent to the sale. Worse, Filinvest was not even notified of such sale. Having subsequently stepped
into the shoes of Filinvest, petitioner acquired the same rights as the former had against respondent
spouses. The defenses that could have been invoked by Filinvest against the spouses can be successfully
raised by petitioner. Therefore, for failure of respondent spouses to obtain the consent of Filinvest
thereto, the sale of the vehicle to Conrado R. Tecson was not binding on the former. When the credit was
assigned by Filinvest to petitioner, respondent spouses stood on record as the debtor-mortgagor.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the
Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED and REINSTATED. Respondents Jesus Ponce and Elizabeth Ponce are
ORDERED to pay petitioner, jointly and severally, the following sums:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a) P26,633.09, plus interest at 14% per annum from April 26, 1978 until fully paid;
b) 25% of the above sum in item (a) as liquidated damages;
c) P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and
d) costs of suit.
In connection with the Third Party Complaint of the respondents, the third party defendant Conrado
Tecson is hereby ordered to reimburse respondents Ponce for all the sums the latter would pay to
petitioner, and attorney’s fees of P3,000.00.
SO ORDERED. chanrobles.com : virtual law library
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Decision dated November 8, 1989 of Regional Trial Court (RTC-Branch IX, Manila),
penned by Judge Edilberto G. Sandoval, pp. 11-12; Rollo, pp. 78-79, reads: "WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered, ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff jointly and
2/5
11/1/2019 G.R. No. 116363 December 10, 1999 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : DECEMBER 1999 - PHILIPPINE SUPRE…
A.M. No. 97-9-94-MTCC December 8, 1999 - severally the following sums: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

REYNALDO Q. MARQUEZ v. ARCADIO I. MANIGBAS

a.) P26,633.09, plus interest at 14% per annum from April 26, 1978 until fully paid;
G.R. No. 108581 December 8, 1999 - LOURDES L.
DOROTHEO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
b.) 25% of the above sum in item (a) as liquidated damages;
G.R. No. 121630 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JOSE BIÑAS
c.) P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and

G.R. No. 124342 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF d.) costs of suit.

THE PHIL. v. EDWIN LADRILLO
In connection with the Third Party Complaint of the defendants-third-party plaintiffs, the
G.R. No. 126010 December 8, 1999 - LUCITA third party defendant Conrado Tecson is hereby ordered to reimburse defendants Ponce for
ESTRELLA HERNANDEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. all the sums the latter would pay to the plaintiff, and attorney’s fees of P3,000.00.

G.R. No. 126199 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF SO ORDERED." cralaw virtua1aw library

THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SEVILLA

2. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision, promulgated April 29,
G.R. No. 127421 December 8, 1999 - PHILIPPINE
1994 with Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, ponente, and Justices Montoya and Barcelona,
INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORP. v. VIRGILIO
DAPITON, ET AL.
concurring, p. 6; Rollo, p. 59, reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed
decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 127493 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO LABTAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 130210 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. RALPH VELEZ DIAZ
G.R. No. 131039 December 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILS. v. ALBERTO FLORES, ET AL.
3. The assignment of a credit includes all the accessory rights, such as a guaranty,
mortgage, pledge or preference.
4. The provisions of this Code on pledge, insofar as they are not in conflict with the Chattel
Mortgage Law shall be applicable to chattel mortgages.
5. Section 10, Act 1508, "The Chattel Mortgage Law." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 131715 December 8, 1999 - PHILIPPINE

6. People v. Alvarez, 45 Phil. 472.
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. ERNESTO
PABION, ET AL.
7. The mortgage credit may be alienated or assigned to a third person, in whole or in part,
G.R. No. 134047 December 8, 1999 - AMADO S. with the formalities required by law.
BAGATSING v. COMELEC, ET AL.
8. Testate Estate of Mota v. Serra, 47 Phil. 464 (1925); Garcia v. Khu Yek Chiong, 65 Phil.
G.R. No. 134272 December 8, 1999 - CELIA T. 466 (1938)
LAYUS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL
9. ART. 1625. An assignment of a credit, right or action shall produce no effect as against
G.R. No. 134514 December 8, 1999 - third persons, unless it appears in a public instrument, or the instrument is recorded in the
INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES v. Registry of Property in case the assignment involves real property.
PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE & ASSURANCE CO.
10. ART. 1626. The debtor who, before having knowledge of the assignment, pays his
G.R. No. 136384 December 8, 1999 - HADJI
HUSSEIN MOHAMMAD v. COMELEC, ET AL.
creditor shall be released from the obligation.

A.M. No. 99-5-18-SC December 9, 1999 - RE: 11. Summa Insurance Corporation v. CA, 253 SCRA 175.
PETITION FOR UPGRADING OF COURT OF APPEALS
POSITIONS 12. Trans-Pacific Supplies, Inc. v. CA, 235 SCRA 494; Geraldez, v. CA, 231 SCRA 498.

G.R. No. 74851 December 9, 1999 - RIZAL

COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 119837-39 December 9, 1999 - PEOPLE Back to Home | Back to Main
OF THE PHIL. v. ERWIN AGRESOR

G.R. Nos. 123267-68 December 9, 1999 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY APOSTOL QUICK SEARCH
G.R. No. 123918 December 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO LORETO RINGOR

G.R. No. 125633 December 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ALFANTA 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G.R. No. 125687 December 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
THE PHIL. v. DELFIN RONDERO 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. 130722 December 9, 1999 - REYNALDO K. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
LITONJUA, ET AL. v. L & R CORPORATION, ET AL. 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 134559 December 9, 1999 - ANTONIA. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. 135627 December 9, 1999 - ROGELIO G. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
SIQUIAN, JR. v. COMELEC, ET AL. 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
A.M. No. MTJ-99-1217 December 10, 1999 - 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
GLICERIO M. RADOMES v. SALVADOR P. JAKOSALEM 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
G.R. No. 106833 December 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
THE PHIL. v. JAIME QUISAY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. 116363 December 10, 1999 - 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 118233 December 10, 1999 - ANTONIO Z.

REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 128436 December 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO DE LEON

G.R. No. 128877 December 10, 1999 - ROLANDO

ABAD, JR. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 129893 December 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD DIZON

G.R. No. 93540 December 13, 1999 - FULGENCIO S.

FACTORAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 118289 December 13, 1999 - TRANS-ASIA

PHILS. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (TAPEA), ET AL. v.
NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 123599 December 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO FLORES

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1999decemberdecisions.php?id=1092 3/5
11/1/2019 G.R. No. 116363 December 10, 1999 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : DECEMBER 1999 - PHILIPPINE SUPRE…

G.R. No. 130430 December 13, 1999 - REPUBLIC

OF THE PHIL. v. SALUD V. HIZON

G.R. Nos. 133527-28 December 13, 1999 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. JEANETTE (GINETTE) YANSON-
DUMANCAS

G.R. No. 135362 December 13, 1999 - HEIRS OF

AUGUSTO L. SALAS v. LAPERAL REALTY CORP.

AC No. 5176 December 14, 1999 - RITA DE ERE v.

MANOLO RUBI

G.R. Nos. 95897 & 102604 December 14, 1999 -

FLORENCIA T. HUIBONHOA, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 126954 December 14, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MACOSTA

G.R. No. 136916 December 14, 1999 - FLEURDELIZ

B. ORGANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1508 December 15, 1999 -

FLAVIANO B. CORTES v. SEGUNDO B. CATRAL

G.R. Nos. 124374, 126354 & 126366 December 15,

1999 - ISMAEL A. MATHAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 124658 December 15, 1999 - PHILIPPINE

TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 129713 December 15, 1999 - CAGAYAN DE

ORO COLISEUM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 129793 December 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO TANZON

G.R. No. 130407 December 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. RENATO RAMON

G.R. No. 131828 December 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. FELIPE CABALIDA

G.R. No. 132512 December 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. LYNDON SAÑEZ

G.R. No. 134047 December 15, 1999 - AMADO S.

BAGATSING, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 134657 December 15, 1999 - WENCESLAO

P. TRINIDAD v. COMELEC, ET AL.

Adm. Case. No. 675 December 17, 1999 - ROSARIO

MARQUEZ v. ATTY. DIONISIO MENESES

G.R. No. 102596 December 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. NICASIO ENOJA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 107245 December 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ABORDO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 114267 December 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. GILBERT DORIMON

G.R. No. 117363 December 17, 1999 - MILA G.

PANGILINAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 123780 December 17, 1999 - PEDRO R.

CABUAY, JR v. POTENCIANO MALVAR

G.R. No. 123817 December 17, 1999 - IBAAN

RURAL BANK INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 127631 December 17, 1999 - ANGEL

AGUIRRE JR, ET AL. v. EVANGELINE C. DE CASTRO

G.R. No. 127876 December 17, 1999 - ROXAS &

CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 128525 December 17, 1999 - MA. DIVINA

ORTAÑEZ-ENDERES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 128667 December 17, 1999 - RAFAEL A.

LO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 132329 December 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. CONSTANCIO MERINO, ET. AL.

G.R. No. 132451 December 17, 1999 - ENRIQUE T.

GARCIA v. RENATO C. CORONA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 134028 December 17, 1999 - EMPLOYEES’

COMPENSATION COMMISSION v. EDMUND SANICO

G.R. No. 138969 December 17, 1999 -

SALIPONGAN DAGLOC v. COMELEC, ET AL.

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1240 December 21, 1999 -

PATRICK JUAN PEREZ v. IGNACIO R. CONCEPCION

A.M. No. RTJ-95-1283 December 21, 1999 - DAVID

C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

G.R. No. 109149 December 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO SANTOCILDES, JR.

G.R. No. 115191 December 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. LOLITO MORENO

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1999decemberdecisions.php?id=1092 4/5
11/1/2019 G.R. No. 116363 December 10, 1999 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : DECEMBER 1999 - PHILIPPINE SUPRE…

G.R. No. 126169 December 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. APOLINARIO GEROMO

G.R. No. 129750 December 21, 1999 - LEONARDO

T. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 129792 December 21, 1999 - JARCO

MARKETING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 132266 December 21, 1999 - CASTILEX

INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. VICENTE VASQUEZ, ET AL.

G.R. No. 135915 December 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ALBERT ERNEST WILSON

G.R. No. 114262 December 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. QUIRINO QUIJADA

G.R. No. 123769 December 22, 1999 - E. GANZON

v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 125434 December 22, 1999 - DELFIN

ABALOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 125754 December 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ZENAIDA BOLASA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 127864 December 22, 1999 - TRADERS

ROYAL BANK v. NLRC and ROGELIO ESPAÑOLA

G.R. No. 114823 December 23, 1999 - NILO B.

DIONGZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 119870 December 23, 1999 - DR.

BIENVENIDO B. GESMUNDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 121669 December 23, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO DURADO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 126764 December 23, 1999 - PHILIMARE

SHIPPING & EQUIPMENT SUPPLY INC. v. NLRC, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 127326 December 23, 1999 - BENGUET

ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 128820 December 23, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. GAUDIOSO MORE, ET AL.

G.R. No. 133289 December 23, 1999 - LICERIO A.

ANTIPORDA v. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 134699 December 23, 1999 - UNION

BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 124062 December 29, 1999 - REYNALDO

T. COMETA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 124354 December 29, 1999 - ROGELIO E.

RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 128557 December 29, 1999 - LAND BANK

OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 131591 December 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. GERRY SILVA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 133876 December 29, 1999 - BANK OF

AMERICA v. AMERICAN REALTY CORP., ET AL.

 Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1999decemberdecisions.php?id=1092 5/5