Nike G.T.

Air Jordan 1 Nike Air M

Nike E-Series Hustle 2 GTE Air Jordan 1
Elevate Low SYSTM
AD Shoes EP Low Shoes
Shoes Shoes
₱3,279 Basketball… ₱7,095
₱6,195
₱3,895
₱9,895

Nike Air Jordan 1 Los Angeles

Nike Court
Precision 6 High OG Lakers Icon Air Jordan 1
Borough Lo
Basketball 'Satin Bred' Edition Low Shoes
Recraft Sho
Shoes Shoes 2022/23 Ni… ₱6,195
₱2,895
₱3,495 ₱9,895 ₱4,795

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence Contact Us

August 2002 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
 Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2002 > August 2002 Decisions > G.R.
No. 111397 August 12, 2002 - ALFREDO LIM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 111397. August 12, 2002.]

HON. ALFREDO LIM and RAFAELITO GARAYBLAS, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF

APPEALS, HON. WILFREDO REYES and BISTRO PIGALLE, INC., Respondents.

DEC ISION

$43

CARPIO, J.:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

The Case

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari 1 of the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated March 25, 1993, 2 and its Resolution dated July 13, 1993 3 which denied
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. The assailed Decision sustained the orders dated
December 29, 1992, January 20, 1993 and March 2, 1993, 4 issued by Branch 36 of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila. The trial court’s orders enjoined petitioner Alfredo Lim
("Lim" for brevity), then Mayor of Manila, from investigating, impeding or closing down
the business operations of the New Bangkok Club and the Exotic Garden Restaurant
owned by respondent Bistro Pigalle Inc. ("Bistro" for brevity).
c h a n ro b 1 e s v irtu a 1 1 a w1 ib ra ry

The Antecedent Facts

ChanRobles MCLE On-line
On December 7, 1992 Bistro filed before the trial court a petition 5 for mandamus and
prohibition, with prayer for temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction,
against Lim in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila. Bistro filed the case because
policemen under Lim’s instructions inspected and investigated Bistro’s license as well as
the work permits and health certificates of its staff. This caused the stoppage of work in
Bistro’s night club and restaurant operations. 6 Lim also refused to accept Bistro’s
application for a business license, as well as the work permit applications of Bistro’s staff,
for the year 1993. 7

In its petition, Bistro argued that Lim’s refusal to issue the business license and work
permits violated the doctrine laid down this Court in De la Cruz v. Paras, 8 to wit: jg c :c h a n ro b le s .c o m.p h

"Municipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation of nightclubs. They may be

regulated, but not prevented from carrying on their business." c ra la wv irtu a 1 a wlib ra ry

Acting on Bistro’s application for injunctive relief, the trial court issued the first assailed
temporary restraining order on December 29, 1992, the dispositive portion of which
reads: jg c :c h a n ro b le s .c o m.p h

"WHEREFORE, respondent and/or his agents and representatives are ordered to refrain
from inspecting or otherwise interfering in the operation of the establishments of
petitioner (Bistro Pigalle, Inc.)." 9

At the hearing, the parties submitted their evidence in support of their respective
positions. On January 20, 1993, the trial court granted Bistro’s application for a writ of
prohibitory preliminary injunction. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s order
declared: jg c :c h a n ro b le s .c o m.p h

"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Petitioners’ application for a writ of prohibitory
preliminary injunction is granted, and Respondent, and any/all persons acting under his
authority, are and (sic) ordered to cease and desist from inspecting, investigating and
otherwise closing or impeding the business operations of Petitioner Corporation’s
establishments while the petition here is pending resolution on the merits.

Considering that the Respondent is a government official and this injunction relates to
his official duties, the posting of an injunction bond by the Petitioners is not required.
 On the other hand, Petitioners’ application for a writ of mandatory injunction is hereby
denied, for to grant the same would amount to granting the writ of mandamus prayed
Nike G.T. Nike Air for. The Court reserves resolution thereof until the parties shall have been heard on the
Hustle 2 Max SYSTM
GTE EP Ba… Shoes merits." 10
₱9,895 ₱3,895
SHOP NOW SHOP NOW
However, despite the trial court’s order, Lim still issued a closure order on Bistro’s
operations effective January 23, 1993, even sending policemen to carry out his closure
Air Jordan 1
Air Jordan 1
High
Low OG
order.c h a n ro b 1 e s v irtu a 1 1 a w1 ib ra ry

Method of…
₱8,595 ₱7,895
On January 25, 1993, Bistro filed an "Urgent Motion for Contempt" against Lim and the
SHOP NOW SHOP NOW
policemen who stopped Bistro’s operations on January 23, 1993. At the hearing of the
Jordan 1 Nike Star
Mid Alt Runner 4 motion for contempt on January 29, 1993, Bistro withdrew its motion on condition that
Shoes Shoes
Lim would respect the court’s injunction.
₱3,595 ₱2,595
SHOP NOW SHOP NOW
However, on February 12, 13, 15, 26 and 27, and on March 1 and 2, 1993, Lim, acting

Air Jordan 1
Nike Court through his agents and policemen, again disrupted Bistro’s business operations.
Borough
Low Shoes
Low Recra…
₱6,195 ₱2,895 Meanwhile, on February 17, 1993, Lim filed a motion to dissolve the injunctive order of
SHOP NOW SHOP NOW January 20, 1993 and to dismiss the case. Lim insisted that the power of a mayor to

Nike Court Nike Court

inspect and investigate commercial establishments and their staff is implicit in the
Borough Borough statutory power of the city mayor to issue, suspend or revoke business permits and
Low Recra… Low Recra…
licenses. This statutory power is expressly provided for in Section 11 (1), Article II of the
₱2,895 ₱1,895
Revised Charter of the City of Manila and in Section 455, paragraph 3 (iv) of the Local
SHOP NOW SHOP NOW
Government Code of 1991.

The trial court denied Lim’s motion to dissolve the injunction and to dismiss the case in
an order dated March 2, 1993, the dispositive portion of which stated: jg c :c h a n ro b le s .c o m.p h

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby orders: c h a n ro b 1 e s v irtu a l1 a wlib ra ry

(1) The denial of respondent’s motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary prohibitory
injunction or the dismissal of the instant case;

(2) Petitioner-corporation is authorized to remove the wooden cross-bars or any other

impediments which were placed at its establishments, namely, New Bangkok Club and
Exotic Garden Restaurant on February 12, 1993 and February 15, 1993, respectively,
and thereafter said establishments are allowed to resume their operations;
 (3) All the other petitioners are allowed to continue working in the aforenamed
establishments of petitioner-corporation if they have not yet reported; and
Nike G.T. Nike Court
Hustle 2 Vision Low
GTE EP Ba… Next Natu… (4) The hearing on the contempt proceedings is deferred to give sufficient time to
₱9,895 ₱2,895 respondent to elevate the matters assailed herein to the Supreme Court." 11

SHOP NOW SHOP NOW

On March 10, 1993, Lim filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari,
Nike Court Nike Air
Vision Alta Force 1 '07 prohibition and mandamus against Bistro and Judge Wilfredo Reyes. Lim claimed that the
Shoes Shoes
trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
₱3,895 ₱6,895
issuing the writ of prohibitory preliminary injunction.
SHOP NOW SHOP NOW

Nike G.T. Air Jordan 1 On March 25, 1993, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision. 12 In a
Hustle 2 EP High
Basketball… Method of… resolution dated July 13, 1993, the Court of Appeals denied Lim’s motion for
₱9,395 ₱8,595 reconsideration. 13
SHOP NOW SHOP NOW

Nike G.T. Nike E- On July 1, 1993, Manila City Ordinance No. 7783 14 took effect. On the same day, Lim
Jump 2 EP Series AD
Basketball… Shoes ordered the Western Police District Command to permanently close down the operations

₱8,909 ₱3,279 of Bistro, which order the police implemented at once. 15

SHOP NOW SHOP NOW

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Nike Court
Air Jordan 1
Vision Low
Low OG
Next Natur…
In denying Lim’s petition, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not commit
₱2,895 ₱7,895
grave abuse of discretion since it issued the writ after hearing on the basis of the
SHOP NOW SHOP NOW
evidence adduced. c h a n ro b 1 e s v irtu a 1 1 a w1 ib ra ry

The Court of Appeals reasoned thus: jg c :c h a n ro b le s .c o m.p h

". . . A writ of preliminary injunction may issue if the act sought to be enjoined will cause
irreparable injury to the movant or destroy the status quo before a full hearing can be
had on the merits of the case.

A writ of preliminary injunction, as an ancillary or preventive remedy, may only be

resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interests and for no other
purpose during the pendency of the principal action. It is primarily intended to maintain
the status quo between the parties existing prior to the filing of the case.

In the case at bar, We find that the respondent Judge did not act improvidently in issuing
the assailed orders granting the writ of preliminary injunction in order to maintain the
status quo, while the petition is pending resolution on the merits. The private respondent
correctly points out that the questioned writ was regularly issued after several hearings,
in which the parties were allowed to adduce evidence, and argue their respective
positions.

The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is within the limits of the sound exercise
of discretion of the court and the appellate court will not interfere, except, in a clear case
of abuse thereof. . .

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and is accordingly DISMISSED." 16

Hence, this petition.

The Issues

In their Memorandum, petitioners raise the following issues: c h a n ro b 1 e s v irtu a 1 1 a w1 ib ra ry

1. "DID RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO

LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING HIS SAID ASSAILED ORDERS OF
DECEMBER 29, 1992, JANUARY 20, 1993 AND MARCH 2, 1993?"

2. "DID RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERRORS IN RENDERING

ITS ASSAILED DECISION OF MARCH 25, 1993 AND ITS ASSAILED RESOLUTION OF JULY
13, 1993?"

3. "DID SAID CIVIL CASE NO. 92-63712 AND SAID CA-G.R. SP NO. 30381 BECOME
MOOT AND ACADEMIC WHEN THE NEW BANGKOK CLUB AND THE EXOTIC GARDEN
RESTAURANT OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT WERE CLOSED ON JULY 1, 1993 PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 7783?"

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is without merit.

Considering that the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 7783 was not raised before the
trial court or the Court of Appeals, and this issue is still under litigation in another case,
17 the Court will deal only with the first two issues raised by petitioner.
 Validity of the Preliminary Injunction

Bistro’s cause of action in the mandamus and prohibition proceedings before the trial
court is the violation of its property right under its license to operate. The violation
consists of the work disruption in Bistro’s operations caused by Lim and his subordinates
as well as Lim’s refusal to issue a business license to Bistro and work permits to its staff
for the year 1993. The primary relief prayed for by Bistro is the issuance of writs of
mandatory and prohibitory injunction. The mandatory injunction seeks to compel Lim to
accept Bistro’s 1993 business license application and to issue Bistro’s business license.
Also, the mandatory injunction seeks to compel Lim to accept the applications of Bistro’s
staff for work permits. The writ of prohibitory injunction seeks to enjoin Lim from
interfering, impeding or otherwise closing down Bistro’s operations.

The trial court granted only the prohibitory injunction. This enjoined Lim from interfering,
impeding or otherwise closing down Bistro’s operations pending resolution of whether
Lim can validly refuse to issue Bistro’s business license and its staffs work permits for
the year 1993. c h a n ro b 1 e s v irtu a 1 1 a w1 ib ra ry

August-2002 Jurisprudence
A.M. No. OCA-01-5 August 1, 2002
- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
REYNALDO B. STA. ANA
A.M. No. P-02-1575 August 1, 2002
- ARMANDO R. CANILLAS v. CORAZON
V. PELAYO
Lim contends that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the prohibitory injunction. Lim
relies primarily on his power, as Mayor of the City of Manila, to grant and refuse municipal
licenses and business permits as expressly provided for in the Local Government Code
and the Revised Charter of the City of Manila. Lim argues that the powers granted by
these laws implicitly include the power to inspect, investigate and close down Bistro’s
operations for violation of the conditions of its licenses and permits.
v. On the other hand, Bistro asserts that the legal provisions relied upon by Lim do not
apply to the instant case. Bistro maintains that the Local Government Code and the
Revised Charter of the City of Manila do not expressly or impliedly grant Lim any power
to prohibit the operation of night clubs. Lim failed to specify any violation by Bistro of the
conditions of its licenses and permits. In refusing to accept Bistro’s business license
application for the year 1993, Bistro claims that Lim denied Bistro due process of law.

A.M. No. RTJ-91-744 August 1, The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
2002 - LEOPOLDO E. SAN issuing the prohibitory preliminary injunction.
BUENAVENTURA v. JUDGE ANGEL S.
MALAYA, ET AL. We uphold the findings of the Court of Appeals. c h a n ro b 1 e s v irtu a 1 1 a w1 ib ra ry
 G.R. No. 128759 August 1, 2002 -
RAYMUNDO TOLENTINO and LORENZA The authority of mayors to issue business licenses and permits is beyond question. The
ROÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL law expressly provides for such authority. Section 11 (1), Article II of the Revised Charter
of the City of Manila, reads: jg c :c h a n ro b le s .c o m.p h

G.R. No. 133790 August 1, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. "Sec. 11. General duties and powers of the mayor. The general duties and powers of the
FERNANDO CAÑAVERAL mayor shall be: c h a n ro b 1 e s v irtu a l1 a wlib ra ry

G.R. No. 136109 August 1, 2002 -

x x x
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS
and MANUEL DULAWON
(1) To grant and refuse municipal licenses or permits of all classes and to revoke the
same for violation of the conditions upon which they were granted, or if acts prohibited
G.R. No. 136844 August 1, 2002 -
by law or municipal ordinances are being committed under the protection of such licenses
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPO1
or in the premises in which the business for which the same have been granted is carried
RODOLFO CONCEPCION y PERALTA
on, or for any other reason of general interest." (Emphasis supplied)

G.R. No. 137264 August 1, 2002 -

On the other hand, Section 455 (3) (iv) of the Local Government Code provides: jg c :c h a n ro b le s .c o m.p h

EULOGIO O. YUTINGCO and WONG

BEE KUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
"Sec. 455. Chief Executive, Powers, Duties and Compensation: . . .
AL.

(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which is the general
G.R. No. 138756 August 1, 2002 -
welfare of the City and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the City
PHIL. AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORP.
Mayor shall:
v. RAFAEL M. SALAS
c h a n ro b 1 e s v irtu a l1 a wlib ra ry

G.R. No. 139776 August 1, 2002 - (3) . . .

PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE AND

GENERAL INSURANCE CO. v. JUDGE (iv) Issue licenses and permits and suspend or revoke the same for any violation of the

LORE R. VALENCIA-BAGALACSA condition upon which said licenses or permits had been issued, pursuant to law or
ordinance." (Emphasis supplied)

G.R. No. 140058 August 1, 2002 -

MABAYO FARMS v. COURT OF From the language of the two laws, it is clear that the power of the mayor to issue

APPEALS, ET AL. business licenses and permits necessarily includes the corollary power to suspend, revoke
or even refuse to issue the same. However, the power to suspend or revoke these

G.R. No. 140316 August 1, 2002 - licenses and permits is expressly premised on the violation of the conditions of these

JEFFREY DAYRIT v. PHILIPPINE BANK permits and licenses. The laws specifically refer to the "violation of the condition(s)" on

OF COMMUNICATIONS which the licenses and permits were issued. Similarly, the power to refuse to issue such
licenses and permits is premised on non-compliance with the prerequisites for the
 G.R. No. 141089 August 1, 2002 - issuance of such licenses and permits. The mayor must observe due process in
METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORP. and exercising these powers, which means that the mayor must give the applicant or licensee
APOLINARIO AJOC v. COURT OF notice and opportunity to be heard. c h a n ro b 1 e s v irtu a 1 1 a w1 ib ra ry

APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 143200-01 August 1,
2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
RICHARD R. DEAUNA
G.R. Nos. 145449-50 August 1,
2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
True, the mayor has the power to inspect and investigate private commercial
establishments for any violation of the conditions of their licenses and permits. However,
the mayor has no power to order a police raid on these establishments in the guise of
inspecting or investigating these commercial establishments. Lim acted beyond his
authority when he directed policemen to raid the New Bangkok Club and the Exotic
Garden Restaurant. Such act of Lim violated Ordinance No. 7716 18 which expressly
prohibits police raids and inspections, to wit: jg c :c h a n ro b le s .c o m.p h

CELSO MORFI

"Section 1. No member of the Western Police District shall conduct inspection of food and
G.R. Nos. 137037-38 August 5,
other business establishments for the purpose of enforcing sanitary rules and
2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
regulations, inspecting licenses and permits, and/or enforcing internal revenue and
VIRGILIO ROMERO
customs laws and regulations. This responsibility should be properly exercised by Local
Government Authorities and other concerned agencies." (Emphasis supplied)
Adm. Case No. 5094 August 6,
2002 - NOEMI ARANDIA v. ERMANDO
These local government officials include the City Health Officer or his representative,
MAGALONG
pursuant to the Revised City Ordinances of the City of Manila, 19 and the City Treasurer
pursuant to Section 470 of the Local Government Code. 20
G.R. Nos. 116905-908 August 6,
2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
Lim has no authority to close down Bistro’s business or any business establishment in
EDUARDO BALLESTEROS
Manila without due process of law. Lim cannot take refuge under the Revised Charter of
the City of Manila and the Local Government Code. There is no provision in these laws
G.R. No. 128781 August 6, 2002 -
expressly or impliedly granting the mayor authority to close down private commercial
TERESITA N. DE LEON v. COURT OF
establishments without notice and hearing, and even if there is, such provision would be
APPEALS, ET AL.
void. The due process clause of the Constitution requires that Lim should have given
Bistro an opportunity to rebut the allegations that it violated the conditions of its licenses
G.R. Nos. 131589-90 August 6,
and permits.
2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
BALTAZAR CESISTA
The regulatory powers granted to municipal corporations must always be exercised in
accordance with law, with utmost observance of the rights of the people to due process
G.R. No. 131807 August 6, 2002 -
and equal protection of the law. 21 Such power cannot be exercised whimsically,
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE B.
arbitrarily or despotically. In the instant case, we find that Lim’s exercise of this power
CANICULA
violated Bistro’s property rights that are protected under the due process clause of the
Constitution. c h a n ro b 1 e s v irtu a 1 1 a w1 ib ra ry
 G.R. No. 132915 August 6, 2002 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUNNY Lim did not charge Bistro with any specific violation of the conditions of its business
GARCIA, ET AL. license or permits. Still, Lim closed down Bistro’s operations even before the expiration of
its business license on December 31, 1992. Lim also refused to accept Bistro’s license
G.R. No. 136158 August 6, 2002 - application for 1993, in effect denying the application without examining whether it
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO F. DE complies with legal prerequisites.
LA CRUZ
Lim’s zeal in his campaign against prostitution is commendable. The presumption is that
G.R. No. 138664 August 6, 2002 - he acted in good faith and was motivated by his concern for his constituents when he
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. implemented his campaign against prostitution in the Ermita-Malate area. However, there
SOTERO SERADO is no excusing Lim for arbitrarily closing down, without due process of law, the business
operations of Bistro. For this reason, the trial court properly restrained the acts of Lim.
G.R. No. 141463 August 6, 2002 -
VICTOR ORQUIOLA, ET AL. v. COURT Consequently, the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the trial court’s orders. The
OF APPEALS, ET AL. sole objective of a writ of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the
merits of the case can be heard fully. It is generally availed of to prevent actual or
G.R. No. 141910 August 6, 2002 - threatened acts, until the merits of the case can be disposed of. 22 In the instant case,
FGU INSURANCE CORP. v. G.P. the issuance of the writ of prohibitory preliminary injunction did not dispose of the main
SARMIENTO TRUCKING CORP., ET AL. case for mandamus. The trial court issued the injunction in view of the disruptions and
stoppage in Bistro’s operations as a consequence of Lim’s closure orders. The injunction
G.R. No. 142760 August 6, 2002 - was intended to maintain the status quo while the petition has not been resolved on the
BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT merits.c h a n ro b 1 e s v irtu a 1 1 a w1 ib ra ry

AUTHORITY v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court
G.R. No. 142985 August 6, 2002 - of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 30381 is AFFIRMED in toto.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO B.
MAGTIBAY SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 143071 August 6, 2002 - Puno and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE
MAGNABE, JR. Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., is on leave.

G.R. No. 143397 August 6, 2002 -

SANTIAGO ALCANTARA v. COURT OF Endnotes:

APPEALS and THE PENINSULA MANILA

1. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

G.R. No. 143474 August 6, 2002 -
PACIFICO FAELDONEA v. CIVIL
2. Penned by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and concurred in by Justices
SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.
 Luis Javellana and Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes, Rollo, pp. 193-196.
G.R. Nos. 144340-42 August 6,
2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. 3. Rollo, p. 209.
RODELIO R. AQUINO
4. Temporary restraining order dated December 29, 1992; Order of Injunction
G.R. No. 144505 August 6, 2002 - dated January 20, 1993 and Order of Denial of petitioners’ Motion to Dissolve
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Injunction dated March 2, 1993, issued by Judge Wilfredo Reyes, Regional
ERNESTO SAN JUAN Trial Court of Manila, Branch 36; Rollo, pp. 76-77, 94-100, and 145-152,
respectively.
G.R. No. 146211 August 6, 2002 -
MANUEL NAGRAMPA v. PEOPLE OF THE 5. Docketed as Civil Case No. 92-63712.
PHIL.
6. The New Bangkok Club and the Exotic Garden Restaurant.
G.R. No. 146651 August 6, 2002 -
RONALDO P. ABILLA, ET AL. v. CARLOS 7. Bistro Pigalle, Inc., the owner-operator of the New Bangkok Club and the
ANG GOBONSENG, JR., ET AL. Exotic Garden Restaurant, was issued Mayor’s Permit by then Manila Mayor
Gemiliano Lopez to operate as a night club, restaurant, with a café day club
G.R. Nos. 146897-917 August 6, which permit was valid until December 31, 1992.
2002 - DATUKAN M. GUIANI, ET AL. v.
SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), 8. 123 SCRA 569 (1983).
ET AL.
9. Rollo, pp. 76-77.
Adm. Case No. 1890 August 7,
2002 - FEDERICO C. SUNTAY v. ATTY. 10. Rollo, pp. 94-100.
RAFAEL G. SUNTAY
11. Rollo, p. 152.
A.M. No. 02-5-111-MCTC August 7,
2002 - RE: MR. WENCESLAO P. TINOY 12. Supra, see note 2.

G.R. Nos. 132393-94 August 7, 13. Supra, see note 3.

2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
LEONARDO DUMANLANG 14. An Ordinance Prohibiting the Establishment or Operation of Businesses
providing Certain Forms of Amusement, Entertainment, Services and Facilities
G.R. No. 134278 August 7, 2002 - in the Ermita-Malate Area.
RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL. 15. Rollo, pp. 218-219.

16. Supra, see note 2; CA Decision, pp. 3-4, Rollo, pp. 195-196.
 G.R. No. 135054 August 7, 2002 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL 17. Pending before the 2nd Division of the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-
GANNABAN S.P. G.R. No. 44429, entitled "Cotton Club Corp. v. Hon. Alfredo Lim" ; Rollo,
p. 415.
G.R. No. 137024 August 7, 2002 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELOY MICLAT, 18. An Ordinance Amending Section 1 of Ordinance No. 6507. This ordinance
JR. was approved on December 22, 1989 by then Manila Mayor Gemiliano Lopez.

G.R. No. 139235 August 7, 2002 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NATHANIEL
SURIO
G.R. Nos. 140642-46 August 7,
2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO
REYES
19. "Section 994: Inspection and Supervision: All articles of food and drink
sold or offered for sale, all places for their preparation, manufacture or sale,
and all food travelers or persons engaged in the preparation, manufacture or
sale of any kind of food or drink shall be at all times subject to inspection and
supervision by the Director of Health (now City Health Officer) and to such
rules and regulations as are promulgated or may be promulgated by him. . .
."
c ra la wv irtu a 1 a wlib ra ry

G.R. No. 141699 August 7, 2002 - 20. "Section 470. (d), sub-par 4: Inspect private commercial and industrial
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON D. establishments within the jurisdiction of the local government unit concerned
LIM, ET AL. in relation to the implementation of tax ordinances, pursuant to the
provisions under Book II of this Code." c ra la wv irtu a 1 a wlib ra ry

G.R. No. 142900 August 7, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTITUTO
21. Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 SCRA 314
GUARDIAN
(2000).

G.R. No. 145303-04 August 7,

22. Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 265
2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
(2000).
EDUARDO T. OCAMPO

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1509 August 8,

2002 - ASUNCION S. LIGUID v.
POLICARPIO S. CAMANO, JR. Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. Nos. 109568 & 113454 August

8, 2002 - ROLANDO SIGRE v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 117018-19 August 8,

2002 - BENJAMIN D. YNSON v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 133176 August 8, 2002 -
PILIPINAS BANK v. ALFREDO T. ONG,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 133267 August 8, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO
PERALTA

G.R. No. 135806 August 8, 2002 -

TOYOTA MOTORS PHIL. CORP. LABOR
UNION v. TOYOTA MOTOR PHIL. CORP.
EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION

G.R. No. 140871 August 8, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTY SILVA,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 142566 August 8, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR
MIRANDA

G.R. No. 143514 August 8, 2002 -

ANDREW B. GONZALES v. LILIOSA R.
GAYTA

G.R. No. 148267 August 8, 2002 -

ARMANDO C. CARPIO v. SULU
RESOURCES DEV’T. CORP.

G.R. No. 149473 August 9, 2002 -

TERESITA PACAÑA CONEJOS v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 111397 August 12, 2002 -

ALFREDO LIM, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 125027 August 12, 2002 -
ANITA MANGILA v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 135239-40 August 12,

2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ROLANDO ATADERO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 139610 August 12, 2002 -

AUREA R. MONTEVERDE v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL.

G.R. No. 146636 August 12, 2002 -

PABLO A. AUSTRIA v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 128576 August 13, 2002 -

MARIANO A. VELEZ, ET AL. v.
FRANCISCO DEMETRIO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 134141 August 13, 2002 -

LEODY MANUEL v. JOSE and DAISY
ESCALANTE

A.M. No. P-02-1628 August 14,

2002 - NICANOR T. SANTOS v.
DELILAH GONZALES-MUÑOZ

G.R. No. 128593 August 14, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZENAIDA
MANALAD

G.R. Nos. 130659 & 144002 August

14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ANTONIO ROQUE

G.R. No. 131815 August 14, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PABLO
LANSANG
 G.R. No. 132481 August 14, 2002 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO
SALVADOR

G.R. No. 135975 August 14, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO
ABADIES

G.R. No. 141614 August 14, 2002 -

TERESITA BONGATO v. SPS. SEVERO
AND TRINIDAD MALVAR

G.R. No. 143644 August 14, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBIROSA T.
PASTRANA

G.R. No. 133297 August 15, 2002 -

MIRAFLOR M. SAN PEDRO v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

G.R. No. 135308 August 15, 2002 -

BENEDICT URETA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL., ET AL.

G.R. No. 140204 August 15, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAQUIM
MEJARES

G.R. No. 148943 August 15, 2002 -

AGNES GAPACAN, ET AL. v. MARIA
GAPACAN OMIPET

G.R. No. 151228 August 15, 2002 -

ROLANDO Y. TAN v. LEOVIGILDO
LAGRAMA, ET AL.
 A.M. No. RTJ-02-1702 August 20,
2002 - ARSENIO R. SANTOS, ET AL. v.
JUDGE MANUELA F. LORENZO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 106880 August 20, 2002 -

PEDRO ACLON v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 129017 August 20, 2002 -

CONCEPCION V. VDA. DE DAFFON v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 136423 August 20, 2002 -

SPS. EFREN and ZOSIMA RIGOR v.
CONSOLIDATED ORIX LEASING and
FINANCE CORP.

G.R. No. 142981 August 20, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
CARMELITA ALVAREZ

G.R. No. 145503 August 20, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIE
BALLESTEROL

G.R. No. 145719 August 20, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL
HAROVILLA

A.M. No. RTJ-02-1693 August 21,

2002 - OSCAR M. POSO v. JUDGE JOSE
H. MIJARES, ET AL.

G.R. No. 146684 August 21, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIL
SAJOLGA

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1323 August 22,

2002 - Judge PEDRO B. CABATINGAN
SR. (Ret.) v. Judge CELSO A.
ARCUENO

Adm. Matter No. RTJ-01-1648

August 22, 2002 - BASA AIR BASE
SAVINGS & LOAN ASSO. v. JUDGE
GREGORIO G. PIMENTEL, JR.

G.R. No. 101115 August 22, 2002 -

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 127086 August 22, 2002 -

ARC-MEN FOOD INDUSTRIES CORP.,
ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 129035 August 22, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANNABELLE
FRANCISCO

G.R. No. 130965 August 22, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
RESTITUTO CABACAN

G.R. No. 131812 August 22, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
MANUEL YLANAN

G.R. No. 131874 August 22, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUDY
MATORE

G.R. No. 132374 August 22, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUCIO
ALBERTO

G.R. No. 134372 August 22, 2002 -

MANUEL CAMACHO v. ATTY. JOVITO A.
CORESIS, JR., ET AL.

G.R. No. 135877 August 22, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
ERNESTO O. NICOLAS

G.R. No. 136449 August 22, 2002 -

CARMELITA S. MENDIGORIN v. MARIA
CABANTOG

G.R. Nos. 146297-304 August 22,

2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALLAN
CASTRO

G.R. No. 146687 August 22, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONNIE
R. RABANAL

G.R. No. 146790 August 22, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOVITO
SITAO

A.M. No. MTJ-01-1345 August 26,

2002 - ATTY. JULIETA A. OMAÑA v.
JUDGE PRUDENCIO A. YULDE

A.M. No. RTJ-02-1718 August 26,

2002 - MIGUELA BONTUYAN v. JUDGE
GAUDIOSO D. VILLARIN

G.R. No. 139695 August 26, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
GUILLERMO FERRER

G.R. No. 145391 August 26, 2002 -

AVELINO CASUPANAN, ET AL. v.
MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA
 A.M. No. MTJ-02-1454 August 27,
2002 - ARIEL Y. PANGANIBAN v. JUDGE
MA. VICTORIA N. CUPIN-TESORERO

A.M. No. P-02-1630 August 27,

2002 - EFREN V. PEREZ v. ELADIA T.
CUNTING

G.R. No. 136974 August 27, 2002 -

SALVADOR K. MOLL v. HON. MAMERTO
M. BUBAN

G.R. No. 123340 August 29, 2002 -

LUTGARDA CRUZ v. COURT OF
APPEALS

G.R. No. 134468 August 29, 2002 -

NATIONAL STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 134534 August 29, 2002 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPO1
RAFAEL TRAPANE

G.R. No. 138869 August 29, 2002 -

DAVID SO v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 139251 August 29, 2002 -

MA. ERLY P. ERASMO v. HOME
INSURANCE & GUARANTY CORP.

G.R. Nos. 140067-71 August 29,

2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
REMEDIOS MALAPIT, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 142779-95 August 29,

2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
CAMILO SORIANO
 G.R. Nos. 146357 & 148170 August
29, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. MATIAS LAGRAMADA

G.R. No. 149839 August 29, 2002 -

DRA. NEREA RAMIREZ-JONGCO, ET AL.
v. ISMAEL A. VELOSO III
C opyright © 1998 - 2024 Disclaim e r | E-m ail R e strictions | R e Diaz

C hanR oble s™ | Virtual Law Library™ | chanroble s.com ™