8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R.

AZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

February 1988 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > February 1988 Decisions >
A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON:

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 3086. February 23, 1988.]

ALEXANDER PADILLA, Complainant, v. THE HON. BALTAZAR R. DIZON,

Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 113,
Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER COURTS AND COURT PERSONNEL;

COMPLAINT AGAINST A JUDGE; GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AND GROSS
INCOMPETENCE; MANIFEST IN CASE AT BAR. — The respondent judge has shown
gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the law in holding that to convict the
accused for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960, the prosecution must establish
that the accused had the criminal intent to violate the law. The respondent ought to
know that proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) is not essential in offenses
punished by special laws, which are mala prohibita. In requiring proof of malice, the
respondent has by his gross ignorance allowed the accused to go scot free. The
accused at the time of his apprehension at the Manila International Airport had in his
possession the amount of US$355,349.57 in assorted foreign currencies and foreign
exchange instruments (380 pieces), without any specific authority from the Central
Bank as required by law.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; BOLSTERED BY RELEASE OF US$3,000 TO ACCUSED DESPITE

FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS. — He not only
acquitted the accused Lo Chi Fai, but directed in his decision the release to the
accused of at least the amount of US$3,000.00, allowed, according to respondent,
under Central Bank Circular No. 960. This, in spite of the fact that forfeiture

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 1/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…

proceedings had already been instituted by the Bureau of Customs over the currency
listed in the information, which according to the respondent should be respected
since the Bureau of Customs "has the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of seizure
and forfeiture of the property involved in the alleged infringements of the aforesaid
Central Bank Circular." In invoking the provisions of CB Circular No. 960 to justify the
release of US$3,000.00 to the accused, the respondent judge again displayed gross
incompetence and gross ignorance of the law. There is nothing in the said CB Circular
which could be taken as authority for the trial court to release the said amount of
U.S. Currency to the accused. According to the above-cited CB Circular, tourists may
take out or send out from the Philippines foreign exchange in amounts not exceeding
such amounts of foreign exchange brought in by them; for the purpose of
establishing such amount, tourists or non-resident temporary visitors bringing with
them more than US$3,000.00 or its equivalent in other foreign currencies must
declare their foreign exchange at points of entries upon arrival in the Philippines.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY. — The Court finds the respondent Regional Trial Court
Judge, Baltazar R. Dizon, guilty of gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law
and grave and serious misconduct affecting his integrity and efficiency, and consistent
with the responsibility of this Court for the just and proper administration of justice
and for the attainment of the objective of maintaining the people’s faith in the
judiciary (People v. Valenzuela, 135 SCRA 712), it is hereby ordered that the
Respondent Judge be dismissed from the service. All leave and retirement benefits
and privileges to which he may be entitled are hereby forfeited with prejudice to his
being reinstated in any branch of government service, including government-owned
and/or controlled agencies or corporations.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

This is an administrative complaint, dated August 6, 1987, filed by the then Commissioner
of Customs, Alexander Padilla, against respondent Baltazar R. Dizon, RTC Judge, Branch
115, Pasay City, for rendering a manifestly erroneous decision due, at the very least, to
gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law, in Criminal Case No. 86-10126-P,
entitled "People of the Philippines v. Lo Chi Fai", acquitting said accused of the offense
charged, i.e., smuggling of foreign currency out of the country.

Required by the Court to answer the complaint, the respondent judge filed an Answer,
dated October 6, 1987, reciting his "commendable record as a fearless prosecutor" since
his appointment as Assistant City Fiscal of Manila on December 4, 1962, until his
appointment eventually as RTC Judge on February 18, 1983; that in the reorganization of
the judiciary after the February 26, 1986 revolution, he was reappointed to his present
position; that his length of service as prosecutor and judge is "tangible proof that would
negate the allegations of the petitioner" (should be complainant), whereas the latter did
not last long in the service for reasons only known to him; that the decision involved in the
complaint was promulgated by respondent on September 29, 1986, but the complaint
against him was filed only on August 6, 1987, a clear indication of malice and ill-will of the
complainant to subject respondent to harassment, humiliation and vindictiveness; that his
decision, of which he submits a copy (Annex A) as part of his Answer, is based on
"fundamental principles and the foundation of rights and justice" and that if there are
mistakes or errors in the questioned decision, they are committed in good faith.
Accordingly, respondent prays for the dismissal of the petition (should be complaint).

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 2/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…

The issue before the Court is whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross
incompetence or gross ignorance of the law in rendering the decision in question. A judge
can not be held to account or answer, criminally, civilly or administratively, for an
erroneous decision rendered by him in good faith.

The case in which the respondent rendered a decision of acquittal involved a tourist, Lo Chi
Fai, who was caught by a Customs guard at the Manila International Airport while
attempting to smuggle foreign currency and foreign exchange instruments out of the
country. Lo Chi Fai was apprehended by a customs guard and two PAFSECOM officers on
July 9, 1986, while on board Flight PR 300 of the Philippine Air Lines bound for Hongkong.
At the time of his apprehension, he was found carrying with him foreign currency and
foreign exchange instruments (380 pieces) amounting to US$355,349.57, in various
currency denominations, to wit: Japanese Yen, Swiss Franc, Australian Dollar, Singapore
Dollar, HFL Guilder, French Franc, U.S. Dollar, English Pound, Malaysian Dollar, Deutsche
Mark, Canadian Dollar and Hongkong Dollar, without any authority as provided by law. At
the time the accused was apprehended, he was able to exhibit two currency declarations
which he was supposed to have accomplished upon his arrival in Manila in previous trips,
namely, CB Currency Declaration No. 05048, dated May 4, 1986 for US$39,600.00 and
Japanese Yen 4,000,000.00, and CB Currency Declaration No. 06346, dated June 29, 1986
for Japanese Yen 6,600,000.00.

An information was filed against Lo Chi Fai with the RTC of Pasay City for violation of Sec.
6, Central Bank Circular No. 960, as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 9th day of July, 1986, in the City of Pasay, Metro Manila, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Mr. LO CHI
FAI, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attempt to take out of the
Philippines through the Manila International Airport the following foreign currencies in cash
and in checks: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Japanese Yen 32,800,000.00

Swiss Franc SW. FR 6,9000.00

Australian Dollar A$ 17,425.00

Singapore Dollar S$ 9,945.00

Deutsche Marck DM 18,595.00

Canadian Dollar C$ 13,330.00

Hongkong Dollar HK$ 15,630.00

HFL Guilder HFL 430.00

French Franc F/ 6,860.00

US Dollar US$ 73,950.00

English Pound 5,318.00

Malaysian Dollar M$ 14,760.00

in checks)

Australian Dollar A$ 7,750.00

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 3/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…

British Pound 700.00

US Dollar US$ 17,630.00

Canadian Dollar C$ 990.00

without authority from the Central Bank.

Contrary to Law." cralaw virtua1aw library

The case, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 86-10126-P, was subsequently raffled
to Branch 113, presided by herein respondent Judge Baltazar A. Dizon.

Section 6 of Circular No. 960 of the Central Bank provides as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 6. Export, import of foreign exchange; exceptions. — No person shall take out or
transmit or attempt to take out or transmit foreign exchange in any form, out of the
Philippines directly, through other persons, through the mails or through international
carriers except when specifically authorized by the Central Bank or allowed under existing
international agreements or Central Bank regulations.

Tourists and non-resident visitors may take out or send out from the Philippine foreign
exchange in amounts not exceeding such amounts of foreign exchange brought in by
them. For purposes of establishing the amount of foreign exchange brought in or out of the
Philippines, tourists and non-resident temporary visitors bringing with them more than
US$3,000.00 or its equivalent in other foreign currencies shall declare their foreign
exchange in the form prescribed by the Central Bank at points of entries upon arrival in the
Philippines."
cralaw virtua1aw library

The penal sanction is provided by Section 1, P.D. No. 1883, which reads as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 1. Blackmarketing of Foreign Exchange. — That any person who shall engage in
the trading or purchase and sale of foreign currency in violation of existing laws or rules
and regulations of the Central Bank shall be guilty of the crime of blackmarketing of
foreign exchange and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal, (minimum of 12 years
and 1 day and maximum of 20 years) and a fine of no less than fifty thousand
(P50,000.00) Pesos." cralaw virtua1aw library

At the trial, the accused tried to establish that he was a businessman from Kowloon,
Hongkong, engaged in the garment business, in which he had invested 4 to 5 million
Hongkong Dollars; that he had come to the Philippines 9 to 10 times, although the only
dates he could remember were April 2, 1986, May 4, 1986, June 28, 1986, and July 8,
1986; that the reason for his coming to the Philippines was to invest in business in the
Philippines and also to play in the casino; that he had a group of business associates who
decided to invest in business with him, namely: Wakita Noboyuki, Kobayashi Nabuo, Lee
Shiang Pin, Lee Chin and Cze Kai Kwan, who had their own businesses in Japan and
Hongkong; that when he came to the Philippines on April 2, 1986, he brought
US$50,000.00 and 8,500,000.00 Japanese Yen which he tried to declare but the Central
Bank representative refused to accept his declaration, until he could get a confirmation as
to the source of the money, for which reason he contacted his bank in Hongkong and a
telex was sent to him on April 3, 1986 (Exh. 4). He also brought in with him US$39,000.00
and 4,000,000.00 Japanese Yen when he arrived on May 4, 1986 which he declared (Exh.
1). Again, he declared 8,600,000.00 Japanese Yen when he arrived on June 28, 1986 (Exh.
2). He also testified that his business associates, as per their agreement to invest in some
business with him in the Philippines, started putting their money for this purpose in a
common fund, hence, every time anyone of them came to the Philippines, they would
declare the money they were bringing in, and all declarations were handed to and kept by

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 4/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…

him; these currency declarations were presented at the trial as exhibits for the defense.
When asked by the court why he did not present all of these declarations when he was
apprehended at the airport, his answer was that he was not asked to present the
declaration papers of his associates, and besides, he does not understand English and he
was not told to do so. He also testified on cross-examination that the reason he was going
back to Hongkong bringing with him all the money intended to be invested in the
Philippines was because of the fear of his group that the "revolution" taking place in Manila
might become widespread. It was because of this fear that he was urged by his associates
to come to Manila on July 8, 1986 to bring the money out of the Philippines.

The respondent judge, in his decision acquitting the accused, stated: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The factual issue for this Court to determine is whether or not the accused wilfully
violated Section 6 of Circular No. 960. The fact that the accused had in his possession the
foreign currencies when he was about to depart from the Philippines did not by that act
alone make him liable for Violation of Section 6.

What is imperative is the purpose for which the act of bringing foreign currencies out of the
country was done — the very intention. It is that which qualifies the act as criminal or not.
There must be that clear intention to violate and benefit from the act done. Intent is a
mental state, the existence of which is shown by overt acts of a person." cralaw virtua1aw library

The respondent proceeded to analyze the evidence which, according to him, tended to
show that the accused had no wilfull intention to violate the law. According to the
respondent in his decision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . this Court is persuaded to accept the explanation of the defense that the currencies
confiscated and/or seized from the accused belong to him and his business associates
abovenamed. And from the unwavering and unequivocal testimonies of Mr. Templo and all
of currencies in question came from abroad and not from the local source which is what is
being prohibited by the government. Yes, simply reading the provisions of said circular will,
readily show that the currency declaration is required for the purpose of establishing the
amount of currency being brought by tourist or temporary non-resident visitors into the
country. The currency declarations, therefore, is already (sic) intended to serve as a
guideline for the Customs authorities to determine the amounts actually brought in by
them to correspond to the amounts that could be allowed to be taken out. Indeed, this
Court is amazed and really has its misgivings in the manner currency declarations were
made as testified to by the Central Bank employees. Why the Bureau of Customs
representative never took part in all these declarations testified to by no less than five (5)
Central Bank employees? Seemingly, these employees are the favorites of these travellers.
It is the hope of this Court that the authorities must do something to remedy the evident
flaw in the system for effective implementation of the questioned Central Bank Circular No.
960.

But even with a doubtful mind this Court would not be able to pin criminal responsibility on
the accused. This is due to its steadfast adherence and devotion to the rule of law — a
factor in restoring the almost lost faith and erosion of confidence of the people in the
administration of justice. Courts of Justice are guided only by the rule of evidence." cralaw virtua1aw library

The respondent judge has shown gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the law in
holding that to convict the accused for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960, the
prosecution must establish that the accused had the criminal intent to violate the law. The
respondent ought to know that proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) is not
essential in offenses punished by special laws, which are mala prohibita. In requiring proof
of malice, the respondent has by his gross ignorance allowed the accused to go scot free.
The accused at the time of his apprehension at the Manila International Airport had in his
possession the amount of US$355,349.57 in assorted foreign currencies and foreign
exchange instruments (380 pieces), without any specific authority from the Central Bank

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 5/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…

as required by law. At the time of his apprehension, he was able to exhibit only two foreign
currency declarations in his possession. These were old declarations made by him on the
occasion of his previous trips to the Philippines.

Although lack of malice or wilfull intent is not a valid defense in a case for violation of
Central Bank Circular No. 960, the respondent nonetheless chose to exonerate the accused
based on his defense that the foreign currency he was bringing out of the country at the
time he was apprehended by the customs authorities were brought into the Philippines by
him and his alleged business associates on several previous occasions when they came to
the Philippines, supposedly to be used for the purpose of investing in some unspecified or
undetermined business ventures; that this money was kept in the Philippines and he
precisely came to the Philippines to take the money out as he and his alleged business
associates were afraid that the "attempted revolution" which occurred on July 6, 1986
might spread. Such fantastic tale, although totally irrelevant to the matter of the criminal
liability of the accused under the information, was swallowed by the respondent judge
"hook, line and sinker." It did not matter to the respondent that the foreign currency and
foreign currency instruments found in the possession of the accused when he was
apprehended at the airport — 380 pieces in all — and the amounts of such foreign
exchange did not correspond to the foreign currency declarations presented by the accused
at the trial. It did not matter to the respondent that the accused by his own story
admitted, in effect, that he was a "carrier" of foreign currency for other people. The
respondent closed his eyes to the fact that the very substantial amounts of foreign
exchange found in the possession of the accused at the time of his apprehension consisted
of personal checks of other people, as well as cash in various currency denominations (12
kinds of currency in all), which clearly belied the claim of the accused that they were part
of the funds which he and his supposed associates had brought in and kept in the
Philippines for the purpose of investing in some business ventures. The respondent ignored
the fact that most of the CB Currency declarations presented by the defense at the trial
were declarations belonging to other people which could not be utilized by the accused to
justify his having the foreign exchange in his possession. Although contrary to ordinary
human experience and behavior, the respondent judge chose to give credence to the
fantastic tale of the accused that he and his alleged business associates had brought in
from time to time and accumulated and kept in the Philippines foreign exchange (of very
substantial amounts in cash and checks in various foreign currency denominations) for the
purpose of investing in business even before they knew and had come to an agreement as
to the specific business venture in which they were going to invest. These and other
circumstances which make the story concocted by the accused so palpably unbelievable as
to render the findings of the respondent judge obviously contrived to favor the acquittal of
the accused, thereby clearly negating his claim that he rendered the decision "in good
faith." His actuations in this case amount to grave misconduct prejudicial to the interest of
sound and fair administration of justice.

He not only acquitted the accused Lo Chi Fai, but directed in his decision the release to the
accused of at least the amount of US$3,000.00, allowed, according to respondent, under
Central Bank Circular No. 960. This, in spite of the fact that forfeiture proceedings had
already been instituted by the Bureau of Customs over the currency listed in the
information, which according to the respondent should be respected since the Bureau of
Customs "has the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of seizure and forfeiture of the
property involved in the alleged infringements of the aforesaid Central Bank Circular." In
invoking the provisions of CB Circular No. 960 to justify the release of US$3,000.00 to the
accused, the respondent judge again displayed gross incompetence and gross ignorance of
the law. There is nothing in the said CB Circular which could be taken as authority for the
trial court to release the said amount of U.S. Currency to the accused. According to the
above-cited CB Circular, tourists may take out or send out from the Philippines foreign
exchange in amounts not exceeding such amounts of foreign exchange brought in by
them; for the purpose of establishing such amount, tourists or non-resident temporary
visitors bringing with them more than US$3,000.00 or its equivalent in other foreign
currencies must declare their foreign exchange at points of entries upon arrival in the

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 6/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…

Philippines. In other words, CB Circular No. 960 merely provides that for the purpose of
establishing the amount of foreign currency brought in or out of the Philippines, a tourist
upon arrival is required to declare any foreign exchange he is bringing in at the time of his
arrival, if the same exceeds the amount of US$3,000.00 or its equivalent in other foreign
currencies. There is nothing in said circular that would justify returning to him the amount
of at least US$3,000.00, if he is caught attempting to bring out foreign exchange in excess
of said amount without specific authority from the Central Bank.

Accordingly, the Court finds the respondent Regional Trial Court Judge, Baltazar R. Dizon,
guilty of gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law and grave and serious misconduct
affecting his integrity and efficiency, and consistent with the responsibility of this Court for
the just and proper administration of justice and for the attainment of the objective of
maintaining the people’s faith in the judiciary (People v. Valenzuela, 135 SCRA 712), it is
hereby ordered that the Respondent Judge be DISMISSED from the service. All leave and
retirement benefits and privileges to which he may be entitled are hereby forfeited with
prejudice to his being reinstated in any branch of government service, including
government-owned and/or controlled agencies or corporations.

This resolution is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (C.J.), Yap, Fernan, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano,
Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, J., no part: did not participate in deliberations.

Padilla, J., no part — related to petitioner.

Back to Home | Back to Main

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles Professional
Review, Inc.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 7/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…

ChanRobles On-Line Bar

Review

ChanRobles CPA Review

Online

ChanRobles Special Lecture

Series

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 8/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 9/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…

February-1988 Jurisprudence

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 10/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…
G.R. No. L-46585 February
8,1988

ANGELA V. GINSON v.
MUNICIPALITY OF MURCIA, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-28896 February 17,

1988 - COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALGUE,
INC., ET AL.

G.R. No. 75377 February 17,

1988 - CHUA KENG GIAP v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 77716 February 17,

1988 - HEIRS OF THE LATE
DOCTOR CORAZON DIAZ-LEUS v.
HERNANI MELVIDA, ET AL.

A.C. No. 3135 February 17,

1988 - MIGUEL CUENCO v.
MARCELO B. FERNAN

G.R. No. L-37736 February 23,

1988 - ANTONIO L. EVANGELISTA
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 39084 February 23,

1988 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION
OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v.
EMILIO V. SALAS

G.R. No. L-59621 February 23,

1988 - MAXIMILIANO ALVAREZ v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-60578 February 23,

1988 - PATERNO D. ESCUDERO,
ET AL. v. CEFERINO E. DULAY

G.R. No. L-65114 February 23,

1988 - RENE KNECHT v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-69844 February 23,

1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ROMEO M. POLICARPIO

G.R. No. 72870 February 23,

1988 - TEODORO R. PULIDO v.
MANUEL M. LAZARO

G.R. No. 74517 February 23,

1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
BENNY DY

A.C. No. 3086 February 23,

1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v.
BALTAZAR R. DIZON

G.R. No. L-59514 February 25,

1988 - PACIANO REMALANTE v.
CORNELIA TIBE, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-30360 February 26,

1988 - NICOLAS SALAMANCA, ET
AL. v. FAUSTINO RAMOS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-30852 February 26,

1988 - CITY OF ILIGAN v.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 11/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-32055 February 26,

1988 - REYNALDO BERMUDEZ,
SR., ET AL. v. A. MELENCIO-
HERRERA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-32600 February 26,

1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v.
FELICIANO BELMONTE

G.R. No. L-34978 February 26,

1988 - ANGELES C. VDA. DE LAT,
ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-35647 February 26,

1988 - INDUSTRIAL &
COMMERCIAL FACTORS, INC. v.
AURORA S. MARASIGAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-38892 February 26,

1988 - BENITO LEGARDA, ET AL.
v. VICTORIANO SAVELLANO, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-43766 February 26,

1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-44301 February 26,

1988 - MERARDO A. VELASQUEZ
v. ROMEO D. MAGAT, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-49808 February 26,

1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ARNULFO AQUINO, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-54223 February 26,

1988 - BABY BUS INC. v.
MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-55062 February 26,

1988 - SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 75067 February 26,

1988 - PUMA
SPORTSCHUHFABRIKEN RUDOLF
DASSLER, K.G. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 76597 February 26,

1988 - TOMAS LAO v. LETICIA
TO-CHIP, ET AL

G.R. No. 76648 February 26,

1988 - HEIRS OF THE LATE
MATILDE MONTINOLA-SANSON v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 76954-55 February

26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. BENIANO RENEJANE, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-31426 February 29,

1988 - LUZ CARO, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 12/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…
G.R. No. L-34344 February 29,
1988 - RICARDO AGUIRRE, ET
AL. v. JOSE DUMLAO, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-35512 February 29,

1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.,
ET AL. v. NUMERIANO G.
ESTENZO

G.R. No. L-36021 February 29,

1988 - PASTOR DE CASTRO, JR.,
ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-36527 February 29,

1988 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-39013 February 29,

1988 - FRANCISCO BUNAG v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-41979 February 29,

1988 - MATILDE SANCHEZ LIM v.
COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-42624 February 29,

1988 - ANA C. BARCENAS v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-44822 February 29,

1988 - ESPIRITA B. BUENDIA v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-46953 February 29,

1988 - JOSE N. MAYUGA, ET AL.
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-48112 February 29,

1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
MARIANO B. MONTON

G.R. No. L-48546 February 29,

1988 - SUMMIT GUARANTY &
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v.
GREGORIA C. ARNALDO

G.R. No. L-48969 February 29,

1988 - BELEN L. VDA. DE GUIA,
ET AL. v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO,
ET AL.

G.R. No. L-51983 February 29,

1988 - ADORACION VALERA
BRINGAS v. HAROLD M.
HERNANDO, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-55397 February 29,

1988 - TAI TONG CHUACHE & CO.
v. INSURANCE COMMISSION, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-59266 February 29,

1988 - SILVESTRE DIGNOS, ET
AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-60007 February 29,

1988 - NOE C. BAJA v. ANTONIA
CORPUZ MACANDOG, ET AL.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 13/14
8/17/2020 A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON : February 1988 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…
G.R. No. L-60443 February 29,
1988 - CONSTANTINO ALVAREZ,
JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-68636 February 29,

1988 - NORTHERN CEMENT
CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 71177 February 29,

1988 - ERECTORS, INC. v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 73116 February 29,

1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
PRIMITIVO AVANZADO, SR.

G.R. No. 73867 February 29,

1988 - TELEFAST
COMMUNICATIONS/PHILIPPINE
WIRELESS, INC. v. IGNACIO
CASTRO, SR., ET AL.

G.R. No. 76464 February 29,

1988 - TESTATE OF THE LATE
ADRIANA MALOTO, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 76690 February 29,

1988 - CLAUDIA RIVERA
SANCHEZ v. MARIANO C. TUPAS

G.R. No. 78299 February 29,

1988 - G & G TRADING
CORPORATION v. COURT OF
APPEALS

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988februarydecisions.php?id=97 14/14