CARLITO GAÑA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. L-38705 and
G.R. No. L-44358 involved the same parties and arose out of the same
agrarian case (CAR Case No. 2546-T ’73) entitled Carlito
Gaña, et al. vs. Atty. Casiano
Tiongson, et al., originally filed on May 18, 1973
with the Court of Agrarian Relations, Branch III, Tarlac,
Tarlac, by Carlito Gaña, et al., alleging that they are agricultural share
tenants of defendants over the latter’s landholding principally devoted to
planting of palay situated at Barrio Banaba, Tarlac, Tarlac, and thereby prayed for a change of the system from
share to leasehold as envisioned in Republic Act No. 3844 and Republic Act No.
6389 and for the defendants to maintain them in peaceful possession and
cultivation of their respective lots.

G.R. No. L-38705

On June 1, 1973, Gaña, et al. filed
with the Court of Agrarian Relations, Tarlac, Tarlac, a motion for the issuance of an interlocutory order
to restrain defendants from dispossessing them of the landholdings in question,
alleging that defendants are imposing unilaterally a change on the terms and conditions
of their long standing agreement and agrarian relationship over the
landholdings in question which act tends to eject them in their landholdings
through employment of threat, intimidation and actual force and thereby
prevented them from cultivating their farm this agricultural year, 1973-1974.

On June 7, 1973,
the defendants opposed the aforesaid motion and incorporated in their
opposition a counter-motion for the issuance of an interlocutory order to
restrain Gaña, et al. from entering the landholdings
in question and from disturbing their possession.

On July 2, 1973,
after preliminary hearings on the aforesaid two motions, respondent Judge Maglaya issued an order denying the motion of Gaña, et al. and granting that of the defendants.

A motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order proved
futile; hence Gaña, et al. went to the Court of
Appeals, through a petition for review with preliminary mandatory injunction,
therein docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP-02394-R, entitled
“Carlito Gaña, et al.
vs. Froilan Maglaya, et
al.” and prayed thereat for the annulment of the July 2 and July 27, 1973 orders of the
respondent Judge.  A restraining order
was issued by the Court of Appeals on September
19, 1973.

But on October 9, 1973,
the Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying the motion of Gaña, et al. for the issuance of writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction, lifted the September
19, 1973 restraining order, and set the case for hearing on the
merits on October 15, 1973.

At the scheduled October
15, 1973 hearing, only counsel for private respondents was present;
and upon his motion, the case was considered submitted for decision.

On October 23, 1973,
the Court of Appeals rendered its decision dismissing the petition of Gana, et al. per Justice Mateo Canonoy,
concurred in by Justices Cecilia Muñoz Palma and
Guillermo Santos (pp. 102-114, Rollo of G.R. No,
L-38705).  A motion for reconsideration,
filed by Gaña, et al., was denied by a special
division of five by a vote of three (3) to two (2).  The majority opinion was penned by Justice
Guillermo Santos; concurred in by Justices Buenaventura dela
Fuente and Ramon Fernandez; with the former writing a
separate concurring opinion in which the latter concurred (pp. 125-131, rollo).  This time, Justice Canonoy,
the ponente in the main decision, wrote the
dissenting opinion, concurred in by Justice Conrado
Vasquez.  It is their position to
“send the record of this case to the Honorable Secretary of Department of
Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative in Tarlac,
Tarlac, for preliminary determination of the
relationship between the contending parties, after which he should be requested
to certify to this Court his finding whether it is a proper case for the court
to hear and assume jurisdiction over the same” and that “(I)n the
interim the effectivity of Our resolution of October
8, and 15, 1973 and decision promulgated on October 23, 1973 should be
suspended x x” (pp. 132-136, rollo).

On June 21, 1974,
within the period extended, Gaña, et al. filed with
this Court the (first) petition for certiorari seeking to set aside as
null and void the aforesaid decision of the Court of Appeals.  This is G.R. No. L-38705, entitled “Gaña, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.”

On July 23, 1974, private respondents (Tiongson)
filed their comment as required by the First Division resolution of June 29,
1974 (p. 138, rollo); and the Court en banc
(to which the case was subsequently referred) in its resolution dated August 1,
1974, gave due course to the petition and set the case for hearing on the
merits and on the matter of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on
August 8, 1974.

On August 8, 1974,
this Court issued a resolution in the following tenor:

“When this case was called for hearing this morning, there was
no appearance for the petitioners, while Atty. Joselito
Lim appeared for respondents.  After
considering the motion of petitioners to file memorandum in lieu of oral
argument the Court RESOLVED: (a) to require both parties to SUBMIT
simultaneously their respective memoranda in lieu of oral arguments within
thirty (30) days from today; and (b) to advise respondent Judge:  (1) to continue hearing CAR Case No. 2546-T
’73, Carlito Gaña, et al.
vs. Atty. Casiano Tiongson,
et al.” of the Court of Agrarian Relations Branch III, Tarlac,
Tarlac; and (2) to furnish this Court with a copy of
his decision in the said case.  The
comment of respondent Judge Froilan Maglaya of the aforesaid court on the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction, is NOTED.”

The case was considered submitted for decision on September 18,1974;
petitioners having submitted their memorandum on September 6, 1974 and private respondents on September 18, 1974.  But on October 9, 1974, petitioners filed a reply memorandum
which was followed by the filing on November
5, 1974 of a reply memorandum by private respondents.  Both pleadings were duly noted by the Court.

In the meantime and during the pendency
of the case before US, respondent Judge Maglaya
proceeded with the hearing of the case as mandated in the aforesaid August 8, 1974 resolution of this
Court; and on November 11, 1974,
rendered its decision on the merits which was totally adverse to petitioners (Gaña, et al.). 
Pursuant to the August 8 resolution of this Court, respondent Froilan Maglaya forwarded on November 13, 1974 to US a copy of
his aforesaid November 11, 1974
decision.  In OUR resolution of November 21, 1974, receipt of said
decision was duly noted (p. 469, rollo).

On January 28, 1975 the Court resolved “to require the
petitioners and the respondents to inform the Court, within ten (10) days from
notice, whether or not an appeal has been taken to the Court of Appeals from
the decision dated November 11, 1974, of the Court of Agrarian Relations,
Branch III, Tarlac, Tarlac,
with the Hon. Judge Froilan Maglaya
presiding, in ‘Carlito Gaña,
et al. vs. Carlito Tiongson,
et al.'” (p. 470, rollo).

On February 12, 1975,
petitioners filed their compliance with the Court’s January 28, 1975 resolution, informing this Court
that they have appealed the November
11, 1974 decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations to the Court
of Appeals, which was therein docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP
03803 (p. 471, rollo).

The aforesaid compliance was noted in this Court’s resolution of February 19, 1975 (p. 473, rollo).

On February 14, 1975,
respondent Judge Froilan Maglaya
filed a pleading substantially affirming the information contained in the above
manifestation of petitioners (p. 474, rollo).

On February 20, 1975,
private respondents filed their own compliance with the January 28, 1975 resolution of the Court,
likewise stating the same information as aforestated;
but further moved to dismiss the petition on the following grounds:

(A)      
The Court of Agrarian Relations proceeded with
the trial of CAR Case No. 2546-T73 and rendered a decision on the merits;

(B)     
An appeal has been taken by petitioners to the
Court of Appeals from said decision; and

(C)     
The issues raised by the petition for review on certiorari,
therefore, have become moot and academic x x x.

No positive action was taken by the Court on the aforesaid motion
to dismiss.

On January 8, 1977, private respondents (Tiongson),
filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the sole ground that the issue posed
by the instant petition for review on certiorari has become moot and
academic by reason of a decision on the merits on the main case – – CAR Case
No. 2546 T ‘73-which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-SP-03803 and a
petition to review the same on certiorari filed by Gaña,
et al. in the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. L-44358, was denied with
finality on November 26, 1976
– – which had become final and executory as of December 3, 1976.  It was therein argued by movants-respondents
that where a decision on the merits in the main case is rendered and the same
has become final and executory, as in the case at
bar, the action on procedural matters or issues is thereby rendered moot and
academic, citing Vivo vs. Cloribel, et al., 23 SCRA
1393; Acting Director vs. Agcaoili, et al., 45 SCRA
115; and Muñoz vs. Bagase,
et al., 44 SCRA 526 (pp. 483-490, rollo G.R. No. L-38705).

On February 10, 1977,
the Court en banc resolved to require petitioners to comment on
the aforesaid motion (p. 493, rollo).

Instead of filing the required comment, petitioners on March 23, 1977 filed an opposition
(pp. 526-530, rollo).

On March 30, 1977,
private respondents filed a rejoinder to the above opposition (pp. 532-542, rollo).

Status – no definite action yet.

G.R. No. L-44358

Pursuant to the August 8,
1974 resolution of this Court en banc in G.R. No.
L-38705, Judge Froilan Maglaya
proceeded with the trial on the merits of CAR Case No. 2546 T ‘73 entitled
“Carlito Gaña, et al.
vs. Atty. Casiano Tiongson,
et al.”, and on November 11,
1974 rendered judgment therein against Carlito
Gaña, et al. and in favor of Casiano
Tiongson, et al. 
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, based on the above considerations, judgment is
hereby rendered:

“1.  dismissing
plaintiffs’ claim for lack of merit;

“2. declaring herein plaintiffs to be mere hired laborers of
defendants being employed on a crop-to-crop or seasonal basis over the
landholdings in question proven to be under administration;

“3.  directing the release
in favor of defendants the amounts of P657.11 deposited under OR No. 8280738 in
custodia legis under proper
receipts;

“4.  ordering the remaining plaintiffs, namely, Deogracias Fajardo, Epifanio Bildan, Bonifacio Valencia, Isaias Manaois, Gabriel Figueroa, Flor Bildan, Felicidad Reyes,
Silvestre Villanueva, Reynaldo Garcia, Felino Fajardo, Leoncio Patio, Tiburcia Dueñas, Ireneo Sembrano, Andres
Villanueva, Leonardo Villanueva, jointly and severally to pay damages and
attorney’s fees finding that this case was filed and prosecuted in bad faith,
and as a restraint to future similar acts in the amount of P2,000.00;

“5.  dismissing all other
claims of the parties for not being worthy of any consideration and for
insufficiency of evidence;

“6. confirming the interlocutory order in the form of writ of
preliminary injunction issued by this Court earlier and hereby making it
permanent;

“7.  finding the actuations of Atty. Cezar Cotiangco in the case, not
to mention the case of Marcelino Sacdalan,
where he performed the same role of instigator-prosecutor, as worthy of
censure; and

“8.  finding the role
played by Isabelo Tiqui in
this case and another similar case as that of an unworthy citizen and barrio
official.

“x x x x.”

Gaña, et al. appealed the above decision
to the Court of Appeals and was therein given or assigned the same number as
the first case, G.R. No. SP 03803.

On March 31, 1976,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the aforesaid decision of the Court of Agrarian
Relations.

Gaña, et al. filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied on July 14, 1976, for lack of merit.

Hence, Gaña, et al. filed on August 18,
1976 with this Court a petition for review on certiorari of said March
31, 1976 decision of the Court of Appeals in SP 03803 and the same was herein
docketed as G.R. No. L-44358, likewise entitled “Carlito
Gaña, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.  This is the second Gaña
case arising from the CAR Case No. 2546 T ‘73.

On September 1, 1976,
the Court (First Division) required respondents to comment on the petition.

On September 30, 1976,
private respondents filed their comment.

On October 18, 1976,
the Court (First Division) dismissed the petition for the reason that “x x x the questions raised (are)
factual and for insufficient showing that the findings of fact by respondent
Court are unsupported by substantial evidence, and for lack of merit” (p.
135, rollo, G.R. L-44358).

On November 17, 1976,
Carlito Gaña, et al. filed
a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid October 18, 1976 resolution (p.142, rollo).

On November 26, 1976,
the Court (First Division) denied the aforesaid motion for reconsideration, for
lack of merit and declared the denial final (p. 297, rollo).

On February 9, 1977,
entry of final judgment was effected in the case,
certifying that on December 3, 1976,
the judgment therein has become final and executory
and the same was thereby recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments (p. 211, rollo).

Subsequently, however, Gaña, et al.
received a resolution of this Court issued on January 19, 1977, which reads:

“L-44358 (Carlito Gaña et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.); L-44727 (Benigno Castro, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.); and
L-45043 (Candido Baron vs. Court of Appeals, et al.).  Considering the comment of private respondent
on the petition for review on certiorari in L-44727, the Court Resolved
to REQUIRE the petitioners in said case to file a REPLY thereto, within ten
(10) days from notice hereof.”

Gaña, et al., misinterpreting the aforequoted
resolution, the body of which clearly referred only to petitioners in G.R. No.
L-44727, as requiring them also to file a Reply in their case, filed on February 7, 1977 a motion for
extension of time within which to file said reply (pp. 214-215, rollo).

Because of the confusion that ensued, the Court (First Division)
had to issue on February 28, 1977
the following clarificatory resolution, thus:

“L-44358 (Carlito Gaña, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al.); L-44727 (Benigno Castro vs. Court of Appeals, et al.); and L-45043 (Candido Baroch vs. Court of
Appeals, et al.) The respective motions of petitioners for extension to
file reply to comment in L-44358 and in L-45043, are
NOTED, aforesaid petitioners being informed that in view of the denial with
finality of their respective motions for reconsideration of the resolutions
denying the petitions for review, replies are no longer necessary in said cases.
x x x”
(p. 217, rollo).

Notwithstanding the aforesaid clarificatory
resolution, Gaña, et al. filed on March 23, 1977 a motion praying the
Court to reconsider its February 28,
1977 (dated March 2) resolution and its resolution denying the
petition for certiorari.

Private respondents opposed the same on March 30, 1977.

G.R. No. L-44727

This petition seeks to review the decision of the Court of
Appeals rendered on August 16, 1976
in CA-G.R. No. SP-04692-R, affirming the decision of the Court of Agrarian
Relations, Tarlac, Tarlac,
presided by Judge Froilan Maglaya,
in CAR Case No. 2540-T ‘73, in favor of herein respondent landowner Candido Baron (petitioner in G.R. No. L-45043).

On January 19, 1977,
the Court (First Division) acting on the comment of private respondent,
required petitioners to file a reply thereto (p. 126, rollo).

On February 28, 1977,
the Court (First Division) issued this resolution:

“x x x x x.
In L-44727, the Court Resolved: (a) to DISPENSE with the reply to comment; and
upon consideration of the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the
petition for review filed in forma pauperis,
as well as respondents’ comment thereon, (l) to GIVE DUE COURSE to the
petition; and (2) to REQUIRE both parties to file simultaneous memoranda in
lieu of briefs within thirty (30) days from notice hereof.” (note:  first part of
resolution was quoted in p. 8)

With the subsequent submission by the parties of their respective
memoranda, the case was submitted for decision on July 27, 1977.

G.R. No. L-45043

This case likewise originated from the Court of Agrarian
Relations of Tarlac, Tarlac,
presided by Judge Froilan Maglaya,
in CAR Case No. 2462-T-73.  The case was
decided in favor of petitioner landlord Candido
Baron.

But on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed on September 7, 1976 the aforesaid
decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations (CA-G.R. No. SP-04607-R).

Petitioner Candido Baron thus came to
US on a petition for review on certiorari.

On November 24, 1976,
the Court (First Division) denied for lack of merit the aforesaid petition.

Petitioner filed on January
8, 1977 a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution of
denial.

Pending the resolution of the motion, petitioner received a copy
of the “confusing resolution” of January 19, 1977 as earlier quoted therein (see p.
8).  He then filed a motion for extension
of time to file reply in the belief that said resolution required him to do so.

On February 7, 1977,
the Court (First Division) denied with finality petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

On February 28, 1977,
the Court (First Division) further resolved to inform petitioner that, in view
of the denial with finality of (his) motion for reconsideration, his reply is
no longer required.

The resolution of denial became final and executory
on February 16, 1977; and
the records of the case were remanded to the Court of Appeals on March 31, 1977.

In the Court of Appeals meanwhile, Entry of Judgment was made in
CA-SP-03803 (G.R. No. L-44358, S.C.), on January 1, 1977 certifying that the
March 31, 1976 decision rendered therein had become final and executory as of July 21, 1976 (see Court of Appeals’
Records, CA-SP-3803), copy of which was received by counsel for appellants
therein on February 28, 1977.

On March 1, 1977, counsel for appellants therein filed with the
Court of Appeals a pleading denominated as Manifestation with Motion to Set
Aside Entry of Judgment, praying that the “x x x entry of judgment x x x be set aside; and that the remanding of the original
records to the Court of Agrarian Relations, Tarlac, Tarlac, be held in abeyance pending resolution of the
Supreme Court in the instant petition for review by certiorari.”
Said prayer was denied on March 15,
1977, the Court of Appeals acting through a division of five (5);
voting 3 to 2, thus:

“CA-G.R. No. SP-03803 (CAR), Carlito Gaña, et al. Casiano Tiongson, et al.

“Acting upon the MANIFESTATION WITH MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY
OF JUDGMENT, filed by plaintiffs-appellants on March 1, 1977, on the ground
that the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated February 14, 1977 required the
petitioner to ‘Comment on Private respondents Motion To Dismiss the Petition
for Certiorari (G.R. No. L-38705) within ten days from notice;’ and con­sidering
that the case at bar was docketed in the Supreme Court as G.R. No. L-44358 (Carlito Gaña, et al. vs. Court of
Appeals, et al.), the Court RESOLVED:

“Justice Ramon C. Fernandez voted to DENY the Motion to set
Aside Entry of Judgment ‘because the case pending in the Supreme Court is
different from the case at bar.’

“Justice Delfin Fl.  Batacan voted to
deny the subject motion.

“Justice Lorenzo Relova voted to
DENY the subject motion.

“Justice Ricardo C. Puno voted to
set aside the entry of judgment.

“Justice Corazon Juliano Agrava (vice Justice Godofredo P.
Ramos, retired) voted to GRANT the prayer in appellants’ motion ‘because of the
possibility that if it should turn out that our judgment was erroneous, as may
appear or be directed in connection with the final resolution of the Supreme
Court in L-44727, then this case can be reopened with facility (Sangle vs. Alejandro, et al., CA-G.R. No. 53798-R).'”

It would seem to appear that the Court of Appeals’ Division of 5
at the time it considered and resolved the March 1, 1977 motion of appellants
was not AWARE of this Court’s clarificatory
resolution of February 28, 1977 wherein WE clarified the confusion brought
about by the misinterpretation by the parties of OUR reso­lution of January 19,
1977, which was compounded by the allegations made by appellants in their
aforesaid March 1, 1977 motion with the Court of Appeals which manifestly was
filed by appellants still laboring under the aforesaid confusion.  This can be gleaned from the dissenting
opinion of Justice Agrava, thus:

“I vote to grant the prayer in appellants’ ‘Manifestation and
Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment’, dated February 28, 1977.

“Petitions for Review by Certiorari of decisions of
this Court have been filed with the Supreme Court in these cases:

“L-44358 (Carlito Gaña, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.);

“L-44727 (Benigno Castro, et al. vs.
Court of Appeals, et al.); and

“L-45043 (Candido
Baron vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

“The three cases appear to involve the same issue or issues of
law.

“L-44358, the first case, was the appeal from the decision in
the present case.  The appeal was denied
due course in the Resolution of the Supreme Court of October 18, 1976.  A Motion for Reconsideration was denied on November 26, 1976.  Ordinarily, the present case should be
considered closed.

“In the second case, L-44727, it appears that the Supreme
Court is considering whether or not to give due course to the petition filed
therein.  On January 19, 1977, the Supreme Court pro­mulgated
a Resolution as follows:

‘L-44358 (Carlito Gaña, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.); L-44727 (Benigno Castro, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.); and
L-45043 (Candido Baron vs. Court of Appeals, et al.).  Con­sidering the comment of private
respondent on the petition for review on certiorari in L-44727, the
Court Resolved to REQUIRE the petitioners in said case to file a REPLY thereto,
within ten (10) days from notice hereof.’

“What needs special notice is the inclusion of L-44358 in the
above Resolution, despite the fact that the petition therein has already been
denied.  It can be presumed that if the
petition in L-44727 is given due course, the Supreme Court may reopen L-44358
and also give it due course.

“It is therefore my considered opinion that the record in the
instant case should not as yet, be remanded to the CAR because of the
possibility that if it should turn out that our judgment was erroneous, as may
appear or be directed in connection with final Resolution of the Supreme Court
in L-44727, then this case can be reopened with facility (Sangle
v. Alejandro, et al., CA-G.R. No. 53798-R).”

On April 4, 1977,
therein plaintiffs-appellants filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 15, 1977 resolution of the
Court of Appeals Division of Five (5), but the same was denied on May 19, 1977.

Back to this Court, On March 23, 1977, petitioners (Gaña, et al.) in G.R. No.
L-44358 & L-38705 filed a pleading entitled Motion to Reconsider Resolution
March 2, 1977 (referring to
resolution of February 28, 1977)
& Opposition to Dismiss Petition for Certiorari with the following
prayer:

“1.  to reconsider its
Resolution denying the Petition for Review by Certiorari in G.R. No.
L-44358;

“2.  To deny private respondents Motion to Dismiss
the Petition for Certiorari (Special Civil Action) G.R. No. L-38705 for lack of Merit;

“3.  to resolve the said
Petition for Certiorari (L-38705) on its merits; and

“For such other reliefs
available in the premises.”

A rejoinder thereto was filed on March 30, 1977 by private respondents in G.R. No. L-38705, reiterating their January 8, 1977
motion to dismiss the said case for being moot and academic in view of the
finality of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. No. SP-03803-R and the denial with finality by this Court of the
petition to review the said decision (G.R. No. L-44358); while private
respondents filed in G.R. No. L-44358 an opposition to the motion of Gaña, et al. for reconsideration of the February 28, 1977 resolution of the
Court dated March 2, 1977
which informed peti­tioners that their filing of a reply in said case was no
longer necessary in view of the denial with finality of their motion for
reconsideration.

As the records of the four cases would now show, their respective
status are as follows:

(1)  G.R. No. L-38705 Gaña,
et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. – petition pending decision on the merits
as of September 18, 1974,
when it was submitted for decision.  A
motion to dismiss the case was however filed on January 8, 1977 by private respondents on the ground that
the same has become MOOT AND ACADEMIC (pp. 483-491, rollo). 
Required to comment by the Court, Petitioners, instead filed an
OPPOSITION (pp. 526-530, rollo).  Private respondents filed on March 30, 1977 a rejoinder thereto
(pp. 532-542, rollo).  No definite action yet.

(2)  G.R. No. L-44358 – Gaña,
et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. – final and executory
as of December 3, 1976;
records remanded to Court of Appeals on February
9, 1977.

On March 24, 1977,
petitioners filed a motion to reconsider the resolution dated March 2, 1977 (pp. 243-247, rollo).  This refers to the February 28, 1977 resolution of the First
Division which informed them that in view of the denial with finality of their
motion for reconsideration of the resolution denying their petition for review,
reply is no longer required in their case.

This was opposed by private respondents on March 30, 1977 (pp. 248-251, rollo);

(3)  G.R. No. L-44727 – Benigno
Castro, et al. vs. Court of Appeals and Candido Baron
– given due course in the February 28,
1977 resolution of the Court (1st Division); and the same was
submitted for decision on July 27, 1977;
and

(4)  G.R. No. L-45043 – Candido
Baron vs. Court of Appeals and Romulo Bondoc – final and executory as
of February 16, 1977;
records remanded to Court of Appeals on March
31, 1977.

WHEREFORE,

1.     
G.R. No. L-38705, which was submitted for
decision on September 18, 1974 is hereby dismissed as the issues raised
therein had been rendered moot and academic by the decision on the merits on
the main case which had become final and executory in
view of the November 26, 1976
denial with finality of G.R.  No. L-44358;

2.     
G.R. No. L-45043 is hereby considered closed and
terminated, it appearing that it had been denied with finality by the Court’s
resolution of February 7, 1977 (First Division), which became final and executory on February 16, 1977; and the records remanded on
March 31, 1977 to the Court of Appeals; and

3.     
G.R. No. L-44727 is hereby returned to the First
Division of the Court, it appearing that it was given DUE COURSE therein on February 28, 1977 and considered
submitted for decision on July 7, 1977.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Antonio, Concepcion,
Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De
Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., did not take part.