Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

September 1992 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 >

September 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 80812 September 2,
1992 - LUZ E. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 80812. September 2, 1992.]

LUZ E. TAN, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; MOTION FOR NEW

TRIAL; FILING THEREOF DOES NOT SUSPEND THE PERIOD
/
 FOR FILING APPELLANT’S BRIEF. — The filing of petitioner’s
motion for new trial in the appellate court does not suspend the
period for filing appellant’s brief which was due to expire on
August 12, 1987. When petitioner filed her motion for new
trial, she did not take any step to file her appellant’s brief, but
simply waited for the resolution of said motion which was
subsequently denied by the appellate court. Considering that
the appellate court had already denied petitioner’s motion for
the suspension of the period to file the appellants brief in his
Resolution dated August 18, 1987 and only allowed petitioner
to file a motion for new trial provided that the decision of the
trial court has not yet become final on account of petitioner’s
failure to file her appellant’s brief, petitioner cannot assume
that the filing of the motion for new trial automatically
suspended the running of the period within which to file the
appellant’s brief, since such assumption is not supported by the
Rules of Court or any other authority.

DECISION

NOCON, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul and set aside the
Resolution dated October 7, 1987 of the Court of Appeals 1
dismissing petitioner’s appeal in CA-G.R. No. 04348 denying the
admission of her appellant’s brief as well as the Resolution dated
November 9, 1987 2 denying petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

It appears on record that petitioner was charged before the

Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XLI in Criminal Case No. 85-
34251 for the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT in violation of
Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1693, further amending Article
38 of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended or otherwise known
as the New Labor Code of the Philippines in an Information which
reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

/
"That in or about July, 1984, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, by falsely representing herself to have the capacity to
contract, enlist and recruit workers for employment abroad, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for a fee, recruit
and promise employment/job placement to Ronillo Fangon, Danilo
Gerardo and Jaime Estillore, Jr., without first securing the required
license or authority from the Ministry of Labor and Employment." 3

Upon arraignment on April 16, 1985, petitioner pleaded "Not

Guilty." cralaw virtua1aw library

During trial, the prosecution presented complainants Gerardo and

Estillore together with a Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration Officer Visitacion Carreon as witnesses. However,
the defense was not able to present any witness despite several
hearings scheduled since December 16, 1985. Consequently, or on
May 14, 1986, the trial court declared petitioner to have lost her
right to present her evidence and the case was deemed submitted
for decision. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On May 28, 1986, a decision was rendered by the trial court finding
petitioner guilty as charged, the dispositive portion of which
reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused LUZ E.

TAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Illegal
Recruitment as defined in Art. 38 and made punishable under Art.
39 of PD 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the
Philippines, as amended, and hereby sentences the said accused to
suffer an indeterminate sentence ranging from four (4) years as
minimum to six (6) years eight (8) months as maximum and to pay
a fine of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00), and to further
pay the complainants as follows: to Danilo Gerardo the sum of
P10,000.00, and (2) to complainant Jaime Estillore the sum of
P12,000.00 as and by way of actual damage[s]. Cost against
accused." 4

Thereafter, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of

/
Appeals and when she could not file her appellant’s brief within the
30-day reglementary period, she moved for and was granted by
the appellate court a 90-day extension, or until August 12, 1987, to
file the appellant’s brief.

On August 4, 1987, Petitioner, through her new counsel, filed an

Urgent Manifestation and Motion praying that the period for filing
the appellant’s brief be suspended and that appellant be given five
(5) days or until August 9, 1987 within which to file a Motion for
New Trial.

On August 18, 1987, the appellate court issued a Resolution

denying the aforesaid Manifestation for suspension of the period for
the filing of the appellant’s brief, but granting the filing of the
Motion for New Trial provided that the decision of the trial court had
not yet become final on account of petitioner’s failure to file her
appellant’s brief.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

On August 24, 1987, petitioner filed her Motion for New Trial which
was denied on September 8, 1987.

On September 18, 1987, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to

Admit Appellant’s Brief which was denied in the Resolution of
October 7, 1987, the pertinent portion of which reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The period for filing the appellant’s brief has long expired. In the
resolution of August 18, 1987, the Court, taking into account the
considerable delay occasioned by the request for extensions of time
filed by the accused-appellant, finally resolved to deny further
extension of ninety (90) days as requested in her motion dated
August 3, 1987. The result is that the decision of the trial court is
now final and executory.

"WHEREFORE, the accused-appellant’s motion for the admission of

the appellant’s brief and the decision of the trial court are DENIED."
5

Hence, this petition alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part

of the appellate court in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for her
failure to submit her appellant’s brief considering that the filing of a
/
motion for new trial automatically suspends the filing of said brief.

The petition is devoid of merit.

The filing of petitioner’s motion for new trial in the appellate court
does not suspend the period for filing appellant’s brief which was
due to expire on August 12, 1987. When petitioner filed her motion
for new trial, she did not take any step to file her appellant’s brief,
but simply waited for the resolution of said motion which was
subsequently denied by the appellate court. Considering that the
appellate court had already denied petitioner’s motion for the
suspension of the period to file the appellants brief in his Resolution
dated August 18, 1987 and only allowed petitioner to file a motion
for new trial provided that the decision of the trial court has not yet
become final on account of petitioner’s failure to file her appellant’s
brief, petitioner cannot assume that the filing of the motion for new
trial automatically suspended the running of the period within
which to file the appellant’s brief, since such assumption is not
supported by the Rules of Court or any other authority. As correctly
pointed out by the appellate court in its Resolution: chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"Anyway, the failure of her former counsel to ask for new trial in
the court below based on this ground does not constitute accident
or excusable neglect. The accused-appellant herself is negligent.
Knowing that she had a pending criminal case, it was incumbent
upon her to inquire from her counsel what the status of the case
was.

"Indeed, we note the tendency of the accused-appellant of

constantly changing counsel and putting the blame on him or using
this circumstance for delaying the disposition of this case. This
motion for new trial based on vague excuses why the matter, which
is the subject of the motion, was not taken up in the trial court
instead of raising it for the first time in this Court, appears to be
just another attempt to further delay this case. As noted in our
resolution of August 14, 1987: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘The accused-appellant was given an extension of ninety (90) days

within which to file her appellant’s brief with warning that no
further extension will be entertained except on highly meritorious
/
grounds. Accused-appellant’s former counsel, Atty. Joaquin Yuseco,
Jr., manifested to the Court that his appearance was limited to
"seeking provisional liberty for the accused-appellant and filing a
notice of appeal," in view of which the Court, in its resolution of
March 11, 1987, considered the 30-day original period for filing the
appellant’s brief to commence from receipt of the notice by the
Accused-Appellant.

"‘The ninety (90) days extension granted to the appellant,

according to her, would expire on August 4, 1987. However, instead
of filing the appellant’s brief, the accused-appellant now files a new
motion, asking for five (5) days from August 4, 1987 within which
to file a motion for new trial and for the suspension of the period to
file the appellant’s brief.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"‘Considering the delay already incurred in the processing of the

accused-appellant’s appeal in this case, the Court RESOLVED to
DENY the motion for suspension of the appellant’s brief. The
accused-appellant may, however, file a motion for new trial
provided that the decision of the trial court has not become final on
account of accused-appellant’s failure to file her appellant’s brief.’

"WHEREFORE, the motion for new trial is DENIED." 6

Indeed, petitioner was grossly negligent and had no one to blame

but herself in losing her right to appeal since "the right to appeal is
a statutory right and the party who seeks to avail of the same must
comply with the requirements of the Rules." 7 Failing to do so, the
right to appeal is lost, 8 as in the case at bar. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for

lack of merit with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Melo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

/
1. Penned by Justice Vicente V. Mendoza with the
concurrence of Justice Manuel G. Herrera and Justice
Jorge S. Imperial.

2. Rollo, p. 13.

3. CA-Rollo, p. 5.

4. Id., p. 21.

5. Rollo, p. 14.

6. CA-Rollo, pp. 51-52.

7. Ozaeta v. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 800 (1989).

8. Id.

Back to Home | Back to Main

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line
Bar Review

/
September-1992
Jurisprudence

A.M. No. RTJ-88-22

September 1, 1992 -
JOEL GARGANERA v.
ENRIQUE JOCSON

G.R. No. 32075

September 1, 1992 -
SIAO TIAO HONG v.
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE

G.R. No. 32657

September 1, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ, ET
AL.

G.R. Nos. 70746-47

September 1, 1992 -
BIENVENIDO O. MARCOS
v. FERNANDO S. RUIZ,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 86051

September 1, 1992 -
/
JAIME LEDESMA v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 86844

September 1, 1992 -
SPOUSES CESAR DE
RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

A.M. No. 92-8-027-SC

September 2, 1992 - RE:
JOSEFINA V. PALON

G.R. No. 43747

September 2, 1992 -
REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
v. COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF MANILA,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 46025

September 2, 1992 -
FLORITA T. BAUTISTA v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 50618

September 2, 1992 -
LEOPOLDO FACINAL, ET
AL. v. AGAPITO I. CRUZ,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 51289

September 2, 1992 -
RODOLFO
ENCARNACION v.
DYNASTY AMUSEMENT
CENTER CORPORATION,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 56865

September 2, 1992 -
IRENEO TOBIAS, ET AL.
v. TEMISTOCLES B. DIEZ

G.R. No. 61043

September 2, 1992 -
DELTA MOTOR SALES
CORPORATION v. NIU
KIM DUAN, ET AL.
/
 G.R. Nos. 62554-55
September 2, 1992 -
REPUBLIC BANK v.
COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 70120

September 2, 1992 -
CIVIL AERONAUTICS
ADMINISTRATION, ET
AL. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 73198

September 2, 1992 -
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION OF THE
PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 74618

September 2, 1992 -
ANA LIM KALAW v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 75242

September 2, 1992 -
MANILA RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT CORP. v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 78777

September 2, 1992 -
MERLIN P. CAIÑA v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 80812

September 2, 1992 -
LUZ E. TAN v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 84256

September 2, 1992 -
/
ALEJANDRA RIVERA
OLAC, ET AL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 87318

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
JAIME G. SERDAN

G.R. No. 91535

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
EDUARDO L. DE JESUS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 92461

September 2, 1992 -
ESTATE DEVELOPERS
AND INVESTORS
CORPORATION v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92789

September 2, 1992 -
SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92795-96

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
FREDDIE B. TANTIADO

G.R. No. 93141

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v.
ESTANISLAO
GENERALAO, JR.

G.R. No. 93634

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
MASALIM CASIM

G.R. No. 94918

September 2, 1992 -
DANILO I. SUAREZ, ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

/
 G.R. No. 95249
September 2, 1992 -
REPUBLIC PLANTERS
BANK v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 95843

September 2, 1992 -
EDILBERTO C.
ABARQUEZ, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 95921

September 2, 1992 -
SPOUSES ROBERT DINO,
ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96333

September 2, 1992 -
EDUARDO C. DE VERA v.
ERNESTO L. PINEDA

G.R. Nos. 96952-56

September 2, 1992 -
SMI FISH INDUSTRIES,
INC., ET AL. v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 97408-09

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
TOMAS MORENO, JR.

G.R. No. 97805

September 2, 1992 -
NILO H. RAYMUNDO v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 99050

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
CONWAY B. OMAWENG

G.R. No. 99359

September 2, 1992 -
ORLANDO M. ESCAREAL
/
v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 100970

September 2, 1992 -
FINMAN GENERAL
ASSURANCE
CORPORATION v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 103269

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
REYNALDO VALIENTE

A.M. No. P-90-418

September 3, 1992 -
EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD
v. ALFONSO B. MELGAR

G.R. No. 86695

September 3, 1992 -
MARIA ELENA MALAGA,
ET AL. v. MANUEL R.
PENACHOS, JR., ET AL.

G.R. No. 90693

September 3, 1992 -
SPARTAN SECURITY &
DETECTIVE AGENCY,
INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91284

September 3, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
PEPITO T. PEÑERO

G.R. No. 92310

September 3, 1992 -
AGRICULTURAL AND
HOME EXTENSION
DEVELOPMENT GROUP v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 77285

September 4, 1992 -

/
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
AMADEO ABUYEN

G.R. No. 83995

September 4, 1992 -
BENJAMIN EDAÑO v.
COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 88788

September 4, 1992 -
RESTITUTO DE LEON v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 89278

September 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
FERNANDITO S. SICAT

G.R. No. 94375

September 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
SOTERO A. CRUZ

G.R. No. 94825

September 4, 1992 -
PHIL. FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97111-13

September 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
MONICA P. PADILLA

G.R. No. 101469

September 4, 1992 -
MALAYAN INTEGRATED
INDUSTRIES,
CORPORATION v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 101539

September 4, 1992 -
CECILE DE OCAMPO, ET
AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

/
 G.R. No. 102397
September 4, 1992 -
BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB
CORPORATION v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 105120

September 4, 1992 -
SIMPLICIO C. GRIÑO, ET
AL. v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 105346

September 4, 1992 -
RAUL H. SESBREÑO v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 93842

September 7, 1992 -
ERNANDO C. LAYNO v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 92988

September 9, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
IRENEO TIWAKEN

G.R. No. 55741

September 11, 1992 -
LUZ LATAGAN v.
EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 73071

September 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
REYNALDO S. ALVAREZ

G.R. No. 82586

September 11, 1992 -
SALVADOR M. MISON,
ET AL. v. ELI G.C.
NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91159

September 11, 1992 -
/
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
LARRY A. FRANCISCO

G.R. No. 91915

September 11, 1992 -
DIVINE WORD
UNIVERSITY OF
TACLOBAN v.
SECRETARY OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 97441

September 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
DOMINGO CASINILLO

G.R. No. 98062

September 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
REGOBERTO YBEAS

G.R. No. 103903

September 11, 1992 -
MELANIO D. SAMPAYAN,
ET AL. v. RAUL. A. DAZA,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 57475

September 14, 1992 -
REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
v. RUFO NERI, ET AL.

G.R. No. 74851

September 14, 1992 -
RIZAL COMMERCIAL
BANKING CORPORATION
v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

A.C. No. 3248

September 18, 1992 -
DOMINGO R. MARCELO
v. ADRIANO S. JAVIER,
SR.

G.R. No. 70890

September 18, 1992 -
CRESENCIO LIBI, ET AL.
v. INTERMEDIATE

/
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 73919

September 18, 1992 -
NATIONAL IRRIGATION
ADMINISTRATION, ET
AL. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 75915-16

September 18, 1992 -
SPS. GO IT BUN, ET AL.
v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 84917

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
QUEROBEN A. POLIZON

G.R. No. 86218

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ELSIE B. BAGISTA

G.R. No. 91001

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
SILFERIO F. SILLO

G.R. No. 94511-13

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ALEJANDRO C.
VALENCIA

G.R. No. 94828

September 18, 1992 -
SPOUSES ROMULO DE
LA CRUZ, ET AL. v.
ASIAN CONSUMER AND
INDUSTRIAL FINANCE
CORP., ET AL.

G.R. No. 95456

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
MARIO A. BAÑEZ

/
 G.R. No. 95540
September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ARCHIE Q. DISTRITO, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 96255

September 18, 1992 -
HERCULES INDUSTRIES,
INC. v. SECRETARY OF
LABOR, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96329

September 18, 1992 -
MABUHAY VINYL CORP.
v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97918

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
VICTOR E. JAPSAY

G.R. No. 102141

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
WILFREDO SABORNIDO

G.R. No. 105227

September 18, 1992 -
LEANDRO I. VERCELES
v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 61218

September 23, 1992 -
LIBERTAD SANTOS, ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 81883

September 23, 1992 -
KNITJOY
MANUFACTURING, INC.
v. PURA FERRER-
CALLEJA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 83580

September 23, 1992 -

/
ENRICO SY v. ARTURO A.
ROMERO

G.R. Nos. 85403-06

September 23, 1992 -
ANTONIO T. TIONGSON
v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 101706

September 23, 1992 -
CONSOLIDATED
PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES
INC., ET AL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 102693

September 23, 1992 -
SPOUSES AGOSTO
MUÑOZ, ET AL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 85086

September 24, 1991

ARSENIO P.
BUENAVENTURA
ENTERPRISES v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 90254

September 24, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
CARLOS C. FLORIDA

G.R. No. 97765

September 24, 1992 -
KHOSROW MINUCHER v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-44936

September 25, 1992 -
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,
INC. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91114

September 25, 1992 -
/
NELLY LIM v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91359

September 25, 1992 -
VETERANS MANPOWER
AND PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, INC. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 58027

September 28, 1992 -
GOLDEN COUNTRY
FARMS, INC. v. SANVAR
DEVELOPMENT CORP.

G.R. No. 97431

September 28, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
JONATHAN J. ALABAN

G.R. No. 99046

September 28, 1992 -
AQUALYN CORPORATION
v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 100574

September 28, 1992 -
SPS. MARINO SAPUGAY,
ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 102381

September 29, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
EDGARDO H. LOPEZ

G.R. No. 53630

September 30, 1992 -
ENRIQUE KHO, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 82531

September 30, 1992 -
DOMINGO T. MENDOZA
v. MARIA MENDOZA
NAVARETTE, ET AL.

/
 G.R. No. 82630
September 30, 1992 -
MARIA GULANG v.
GENOVEVA NADAYAG,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 94461

September 30, 1992 -
INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATE BANK, INC.
v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 97356

September 30, 1992 -
ARTURO C. CORONA v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 105017

September 30, 1992 -
PABLO NIDOY v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz