G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v.
PEOPLE OF …REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
Search
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1995julydecisions.php?id=824
12/10/2018, 9)52 PM
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1995 > July 1995 Decisions > G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 -
LEON TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 89103. July 14, 1995.]
LEON TAMBASEN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 2ND ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR GLORIA LASTIMOSA MARCOS and HON. CICERO U. QUERUBIN in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, Branch 44, Bacolod City,
Respondents.
Rodolfo V . Gumban and Jose J . Diaz for Petitioner.
Solicitor General for public Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; SEARCH WARRANTS; ISSUANCE THEREOF FOR MORE THAN
ONE SPECIFIC OFFENSE PROHIBITED. — On its face, the search warrant violates Section 3, Rule 126 of
the Revised Rules of Court, which prohibits the issuance of a search warrant for more than one specific
offense. The caption of Search Warrant No. 365 reflects the violation of two special laws: P.D. No. 1866
for illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives; and R.A. No. 1700, the Anti-Subversion
Law. Search Warrant No. 365 was therefore a "scatter-shot warrant" and totally null and void.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SEIZURE OF ARTICLES NOT DESCRIBED THEREIN VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 2, ARTICLE
III OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION. — By their seizure of articles not described in the search warrant, the
police acted beyond the parameters of their authority under the search warrant. Section 2, Article III of
the 1987 Constitution requires that a search warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized.
"The evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only
those, particularly described in the search warrant — to leave the officers of the law with no discretion
regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not
be made and that abuses may not be committed." The same constitutional provision is also aimed at
preventing violations of security in person and property and unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the
home, and giving remedy against such usurpations when attempted.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES
AND SEIZURE INADMISSIBLE. — Section 3(2) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that
evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Page 1 of 6
G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE OF …REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
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
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1995julydecisions.php?id=824
12/10/2018, 9)52 PM
DECISION
QUIASON, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside the
order dated July 20, 1989 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, Bacolod City in Civil Case No.
5331, which nullified with order earlier issued by the Municipal Trial Circuit Court (MTCC) of the City of
Bacolod. The MTCC Order directed the return to petitioner of the amount of P14,000.00 which had been
seized by the police. chanrobles.com : virtual law library
On August 31, 1988, P/ Sgt. Flumar Natuel applied for the issuance of a search warrant from the MTCC,
alleging that he received information that petitioner had in his possession at his house at the North
Capitol Road, Bacolod City, "M-16 Armalite Rifles (Mags & Ammos), Hand Grenades, .45 Cal. Pistols
(Mags & Ammos), Dynamite Sticks and Subversive Documents," which articles were "used or intended to
be used" for illegal purposes (Rollo, p. 14). On the same day, the application was granted by the MTCC
with the issuance of Search Warrant No. 365, which allowed the seizure of the items specified in the
application (Roll, p. 15).
At around 6:30 P.M. of September 9, 1988, a police team searched the house of petitioner and seized the
following articles: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(1) Two (2) envelops containing cash in the total amount of P14,000.00 (one envelope P10,000.00 and
another P4,000.00);
(2) one (1) AR 280 handset w/antenae (sic) SN-00485;
(3) one (1) YAESU FM Transceiver FT 23R w/ Antenae (sic);
(4) one (1) ALINCO ELH 230D Base;
(5) one (1) DC Regulator Supply 150 V. 13.8 V 12 AMP — VAC;
(6) one (1) brown Academy Notebook & Assorted papers; and
(7) Four (4) handsets battery pack" (Rollo, p. 16).
On September 19, 1988, the MTCC acting on petitioners urgent motion for the return of the seized
articles, issued an order directing Sgt. Natuel to make a return of the search warrant. The following day,
Sgt. Natuel submitted a report to the court. Not considering the report as a "return in contemplation of
law," petitioner filed another motion praying that Sgt. Natuel be required to submit a complete and
verified inventory of the seized articles. Thereafter, Sgt. Natuel manifested that although he was the
applicant for the issuance of the search warrant, he was not present when it was served. cralawnad
On October 7, 1988, petitioner filed before the MTCC a motion praying that the search and seizure be
declared illegal and that the seized articles be returned to him. In his answer to the motion, Lt. Col.
Nicolas Torres, the station commander of the Bacolod City Police, said that the amount of P14,000.00 had
been earmarked for the payment of the allowance of the Armed City Partisan (ACP) and other "known
NPA personalities" operating in the City of Bacolod.
On December 23, 1988, the MTCC issued an order directing Lt. Col. Torres to return the money seized to
petitioner. The court opined that in the implementation of the search warrant, any seizure should be
limited to the specific items covered thereby. It said that the money could not be considered as
"subversive documents" ; it was neither stolen nor the effects of gambling.
Three months later, the Solicitor General filed before the RTC Branch 44, Bacolod City a petition for
- certiorari seeking the annulment of the order of the MTCC (Civil Case No. 5331). The petition alleged that
assuming that the seizure of the money had been invalid, petitioner was not entitled to its return citing
the rulings in Alih v. Castro, 151 SCRA 279 (1987) and Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1986). In those
cases, the Court held that pending the determination of the legality of the seizure of the articles, they
should remain in custodia legis. The petition also averred that a criminal complaint for "any of the crimes
against public order as provided under Chapter I, Title III of the Revised Penal Code" had been filed with
the City Fiscal (BC I.S. No. 88-1239) and therefore, should the money be found as having been
earmarked for subversive activities, it should be confiscated pursuant to Article 45 of the Revised Penal
Code. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
On July 20, 1989 RTC, Branch 44 issued an order granting the petition for certiorari and directing the
clerk of court to return to the MTCC the money pending the resolution of the preliminary investigation
being conducted by the city prosecutor on the criminal complaint. In said order, the RTC held: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The Court observed that private respondent Leon Tambasen never questioned the validity of the search
warrant issued by respondent Judge Demosthenes L. Magallanes. A perusal of private respondent’s
Motion to Declare Search and Seizure Illegal and to Return Seized Properties’ dated October 7, 1988
shows that respondent Tambasen questions not the validity of the search warrant issued by respondent
Judge Demosthenes Magallanes, but rather, the execution or implementation of the said warrant
principally on the ground that the articles seized are not allegedly mentioned in the search warrant.
However, the question thus raised involves matters determinative of the admissibility in evidence and the
legality of the articles seized. These matters, it is submitted, go beyond the immediate and limited
jurisdiction of the respondent Judge to inquire into the validity of the search warrant he issued. These
issues which relate exclusively or principally with the intrinsic and substantive merits of the case or cases
which are being prepared against respondent Tambasen, and insofar as Tambasen is concerned involve
matters of defense which should be properly raised at the criminal action or actions that may be filed
against respondent Leon Tambasen (see DOH v. Sy Chi Siong Co., Inc. Et. Al., G.R. No. 85289, Feb. 20,
1989). They cannot be addressed to the respondent Judge because the respondent Judge has no
jurisdiction over the said issue. It is clear therefore that respondent Judge has transcended the
- boundaries of his limited jurisdiction and had in effect encroached upon the jurisdiction of the appropriate
trial court or courts that will try the criminal case or cases against respondent Leon Tambasen, in issuing
the assailed order dated December 23, 1988. Ostensibly, the assailed order, if not corrected, will unduly
Page 2 of 6
G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE OF …REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
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.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1995julydecisions.php?id=824
12/10/2018, 9)52 PM
deprived the prosecution of its right to present the evidence in question and consequently will improperly
oust the trial court, which will try the criminal case or cases against private respondent Leon Tambasen of
its original and exclusive jurisdiction to rule on the admissibility and legality of the said evidence. This
order of respondent court is tantamount to a denial of due process. It may be considered as a grave
abuse of discretion reviewable by certiorari (Esparagoza v. Tan, 94 Phil. 749)" (Rollo , pp. 47-48).
Consequently, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition praying for the issuance of
a temporary restraining order commanding the city prosecutor to cease and desist from continuing with
the preliminary investigation in BC I.S. No. 88-1239 and the RTC from taking any step with respect to
Civil Case No. 5331. He also prayed that Search Warrant No. 365 and the seizure of his personal effects
be declared illegal and that the Order of July 20, 1989 be reversed and annulled.
Petitioner contended that the search warrant covered three offenses:" (1) illegal possession of armalite
rifle and .45 cal. pistol; (2) illegal possession of hand grenade and dynamite sticks; and (3) illegal
possession of subversive documents" (Rollo, pp. 3-4) in violation of Section 3 of Rule 126 of the Revised
Rules of Court. He assailed the legality of the seizure of the articles which were not mentioned in the
search warrant. Moreover, since a complaint against him was filed only after his house had been
searched, petitioner claimed that the police were "on a fishing expedition." cralaw virtua1aw library
During the pendency of the instant petition, a series of events related to the questioned search and
seizure transpired. At around 10:30 P.M. of March 1, 1990, Petitioner, who was then on board a
passenger vehicle, was arrested by intelligence operatives in Barangay Mandalagan, Bacolod City and
forthwith detained. On the strength of sworn statements of two rebel returnees, the police filed a
complaint for subversion against petitioner with the Office of the City Prosecutor. The following day, the
City Prosecutor filed an information for violation of the Anti-Subversion Law against petitioner with RTC,
Branch 42, Bacolod City (Criminal Case No. 8517). An order for the arrest of petitioner was issued on
March 2, 1990.
On March 6, 1990, petitioner filed a motion to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 8517.
On March 15, 1990, RTC, Branch 42 granted petitioner’s motion to quash and recalled the warrant of
arrest. The court also directed the City Prosecutor to resolve BC-I.S. Case No. 88-1239.
On March 20, 1990, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Gloria Lastimosa Marcos manifested before RTC,
Branch 42 that petitioner had been "dropped" from BC-I.S. No. 88-1239. However, the City Prosecutor
had, by then, filed a motion for the reconsideration of said Resolution of March 15, 1990. The motion was
denied.
Under this factual matrix, this Court is confronted with the question of whether RTC, Branch 44 gravely
abused its discretion in directing that the money seized from petitioner’s house, specifically the amount
of P14,000.00, be retained and kept in custodia legis.
On its face, the search warrant violated Section 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, which prohibits
the issuance of a search warrant for more than one specified offense. The caption of Search Warrant No.
365 reflects the violation of two special laws: P.D. No. 1866 for illegal possession of firearms, ammunition
and explosives; and R.A. No. 1700, the Anti-Subversion Law. Search Warrant No. 365 was therefore a
"scatter-shot warrant" and totally null and void (People v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 101 [1992]).
Moreover, by their seizure of articles not described in the search warrant, the police acted beyond the
parameters of their authority under the search warrant. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
requires that a search warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized. "The evident purpose
and intent of the requirement is no limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly
described in the search warrant — to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what
articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made and that
abuses may not be committed" (Corro v. Lising, 137 SCRA 541, 547 [1985]); Bache & Co. [Phil.], Inc. v.
Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 [1971]; Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, 42 Phil. 886 [1920]). The same constitutional
provision is also aimed at preventing violations of security in person and property and unlawful invasions
of the sanctity of the home, and giving remedy against such usurpation’s when attempted (People v.
Damaso, 212 SCRA 547 [1992] citing Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637, 646 [1946]). cralawnad
Clearly then, the money which was not indicated in the search warrant, had been illegally seized from
petitioner. The fact that the members of the police team were doing their task of pursuing subversive is
not a valid excuse for the illegal seizure. The presumption juris tantum of regularity in the performance
of official duty cannot by itself prevail against the constitutionally protected rights of an individual (People
v. Cruz, 231 SCRA 759 [1994]; People v. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169, 176 [1925]). Although public welfare is the
foundation of the power to search and seize, such power must be exercised and the law enforced without
transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens (People v. Damaso, supra, citing Rodriguez v.
Evangelista , 65 Phil. 230, 235 [1937]). As the Court aptly puts it in Bagalihog v. Fernadez, 198 SCRA
614 (1991)," [z]eal in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the
Constitution itself abhors."cralaw virtua1aw library
For the retention of the money seized by the police officers, approval of the court which issued the search
warrant is necessary (People v. Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743 [1993]). In like manner, only the court which
issued the search warrant may order their release (Templo v. Dela Cruz, 60 SCRA 295 [1974];
Pagkalinawan v. Gomez, 21 SCRA 1275 [1967]).
Section 3(2) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained in violation of the
right against unreasonable searches and seizured shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
The information in Criminal Case No. 8517, with petitioner as the sole accused, was ordered quashed by
the trial court and the prosecution’s motion for the reconsideration of the quashal order had been denied.
Even in BC I.S. Case No. 88-1239, which was being investigated by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Marcos, petitioner was dropped as a Respondent. Hence, there appears to be no criminal prosecution
which can justify the retention of the seized articles in custodia legis.
A subsequent legal development added another reason for the return to him of all the seized articles:
R.A. No. 1700, the Anti-Subversion Law, was repealed by R.A. No. 7636 and, therefore, the crimes
defined in the repealed law no longer exist.
chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the People of the Philippines is ORDERED to RETURN the
money seized to petitioner.
Page 3 of 6
G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE OF …REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 12/10/2018, 9)52 PM

Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-963 July 14, 1995 - SO ORDERED.

MARILOU NAMA MORENO v. JOSE C. BERNABE
Padilla, Davide, Jr. and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Adm. Matter No. P-94-1012 July 14, 1995 -
ERNESTO G. OÑASA, JR. v. EUSEBIO J. VILLARAN
Bellosillo, J., is on leave.
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 Back to Home | Back to Main

Adm. Matter No. P-94-1086 July 14, 1995 - ALFERO

C. BAGANO v. ARTURO A. PANINSORO
QUICK SEARCH
G.R. Nos. L-66211 & L-70528-35 July 14, 1995 -
ARTURO Q. SALIENTES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, ET AL.
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
G.R. Nos. 82220, 82251 & 83059 July 14, 1995 -
PABLITO MENESES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. 88384 July 14, 1995 - FEDERATION OF
LAND REFORM FARMERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v. 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
G.R. No. 91494 July 14, 1995 - CONSOLIDATED 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. COURT OF 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
APPEALS, ET AL.
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. Nos. 92167-68 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
PHIL. v. JOSE R. LEGASPI, ET AL.
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
G.R. No. 92660 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
PHIL. v. SIXTO MORICO
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. 96489 July 14, 1995 - NICOLAS G. SINTOS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
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 Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
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

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1995julydecisions.php?id=824 Page 4 of 6
G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE OF …REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 12/10/2018, 9)52 PM

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

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1995julydecisions.php?id=824 Page 5 of 6
G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE OF …REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 12/10/2018, 9)52 PM

PHIL. v. RENATO R. MONTIERO

G.R. No. 111905 July 31, 1995 - ORIENTAL

MINDORO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

Copyright © 1998 - 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1995julydecisions.php?id=824 Page 6 of 6