Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > April 1960 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-13099 & L-13462 April 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO.

107 Phil 965:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. L-13099 & L-13462. April 29, 1960.]

COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., Respondent. BOHOL LAND TBANSPORTATION CO., Petitioner, v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Solicitor General Edilberto Barot, Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete and Special Attorney Librada del Rosario-Natividad for the Collector of Internal Revenue.

Isabelo V. Binamira and Filemon B. Barria for the Bohol Land Transportation Co.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; INCOME TAX; SECTION 331 OF TAX CODE SUPPLETORY TO MATTERS NOT COVERED BY TITLE COVERING INCOME TAX. — The provisions of Section 331 of the National Internal Revenue Code are general in character which may be considered suppletory with regard to matters not coverod by the title covering income tax. In other words, Title II of the Code is a special provision which governs exclusively all matters pertaining to income tax, whereas Title IX, Chapter II, is a general provision which governs all internal revenue taxes in general, which cannot apply insofar as it may conflict with the provisions of Title II as to which the latter shall prevail, but in the absence of any provision in said Title II relative to the period and method of collection of the tax, the provisions of Title IX, Chapter II, may be deemed to be suppletory in charaeter.

2. ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF CORRECT TAX ASSESSMENT. — All presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax assessments. The good faith of tax assessors and the validity of their actions are presumed. They will be presumed to have taken into consideration all the facts to which thair attention was called. No presumption can be indulged that all of the public officials of the state in the various counties who have to do with the assessment of property for taxation will knowingly violate the duties imposed upon them by law. (51 Am. Jur. pages 620-621).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF PROOF ON COMPLAINING PARTY. — As a logical outgrowth of the presumption in favor of the validity of assessments, when such assessments are assailed, the burden of proof is upon the property owner clearly to show that the assessment was erroneous, in order to relieve himself from it (supra).


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This in an appeal from a decision of the Coort of Tax Appeals dated September 25, 1957 ordering the Bohol Land Transportation Co., hereinafter referred to as company, to pay the amounts of P20,711.99, P18,728.21 and P30,155.09 as deficiency income taxes for the years 1948, 1949 and 1950.

The Bohol Land Transportation Co. is a domestic corporation engaged in the land transportation business with main office at Tagbilaran, Bohol. From 1945 to 1951 it had consistently filed its income tax returns and paid the corresponding incame taxes due thereon as per said returns. Subsequently, a verification of its income tax returns was conducted by an examiner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and as a result the following deficiency assessments were issued against it on August 4 and 5, 1953: for 1945 the deficiency income tax assessed is P15,275.31; for 1946, P15,768.20; for 1947, P11,732.90; for 1948, P20,711.99; for 1949, 18,728.21; for 1950, P30,155.09, and for 1951, P30,189.00.

Due to the company’s failure to settle said deficiency income taxes, the Collector of Internal Revenue issued a warrant of distraint and levy on the property of the company on December 23, 1954. On March 8, 1956, the Collector garnished the sum of P53,910.13 deposited by the company with the Philippine National Bank, Manila Branch, and the current accounts and bank deposits it had with the Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China, Cebu City, in the amount of P200,000.00.

On April 7, 1956, the company filed in the Court of Tax Appeals an appeal contesting the validity of the deficiency assessments made by the Collector as well as of the warrant of distraint and levy issued by him. On May 7, 1956, the Collector filed his answer praying that the company be ordered to pay the deficiency income taxes for the years 1945 to 1951, plus the delinquent penalties that have accrued thereon, in accordance with the assessments made by him. On January 10, 1957, the company filed with the Court of Tax Appeals an urgent motion for mandatory injunction praying that the Collector be required (1) to revoke the warrant of distraint and levy and/or garnishment issued against its properties consisting of 79 motor buses, lands, buildings and office and shop equipment, and against its deposits in the Philippine National Bank, Manila, and the Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China, Cebu City; and (2) to enjoin him from collecting by summary methods the aforesaid deficiency income taxes for the years 1945 to 1951, inclusive.

At the hearing on the injunction, the Collector admitted that pursuant to several decisions of the Supreme Court he has no authority to collect by summary methods the income taxes assessed against the company for the years 1945 to 1950, inclusive, it appearing that the warrant of distraint and levy and the warrant of garnishment were issued beyond the period of three years from the time the income tax returns were filed. Consequently, the parties entered into an agreement dated February 23, 1957 whereby the Collector agreed to withdraw the warrant of distraint and levy against the properties of the company as well as the warrant of garnishment issued against its deposit with the Chartered Bank of India, Austria, and China, Cebu City in the amount of P200,000.00, but "leaving the cash deposit with the Philippine National Bank in Manila, in the amount of P53,910.13, subject to said garnishment to guarantee the interest of the Government with respect to the collection of the tax assessment for the year 1951." clubjuris

At the hearing of the case on the merits, the company in spite of the suggestion of the court did not present any evidence to show the incorrectness of the deficiency income tax assessments with respect to the years 1945 to I950, inclusive, and so the court considered such failure fatal in view of the theory that the assessment made by the Collector is presumed to be prima facie correct un]ess controverted. Hence, the Court of Tax Appeals held the petitioner liable for deficiency income taxes for the years 1948, 1949 and 1950. However, the court found and held that the collection of deficiency taxes from 1945 to 1947 has already prescribed for the reason that the assessments corresponding to said years had been made beyond the 5- year period counted from the time the returns for said years were filed. From this decision, both parties have appealed.

The Collector of Internal Revenue is appealing from that portion of the decision which holds that the right of the Government to assess and collect by judicial action the income taxes for the years 1945 to 1947, inclusive, has already prescribed, invoking our ruling in the case of Collector of Internal Revenue v. Jose Avelino, Et Al., 100 Phil., 327; 54 Off. Gaz. [3] 645, November 10, 1956, the pertinent portion of which raads:ClubJuris

"It is true that under section 331 and 332 of the National Internal Revenue Code the Collector of Internal Revenue may assess an internal revenue tax within five years after the return was filed, and in case of a false or fraudulent return he may also assess such tax as may be found to be due at any time within ten years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission, and their collection may be enforced either by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court; but said sections merely apply to internal revenue taxes in seneral and not to income taxes the collection of which is specifically provided for under a different title of the same law. Thus, when the National Internal Revenue Code was codified and enacted in 1939, the whole Act No. 2833, commonly known as the Income Tax Law, was incorporated therein and became Title II thereof, which is exclusively devoted to income tax, section 51 (d) of said Code, which refers to the assessment and payment of income tax, being merely a reproduction of section 9(a) of the former Income Tax Law, but there is nothing provided in the new Code from which it may be inferred that the provisions of said section 51 (d) were deemed repealed or modified by the provisions of sections 331 and 332 thereof. Since repeals by implication are not favored, unless the contrary clearly appears, and it is a well known rule that conflicting provisions should be harmonized and reconciled so that both may be given force and validity, it is our duty to harmonize and reconcile them if only to give effect to the clear intent of our legislative body. A cursory reading of the provisions of our National Internal Revenue Code regarding the collection of income tax as distinguished from internal revenue taxes in general clearly reveals the intention of our legislative body to preserve in toto the procedure and method of collection originally adopted with regard to the former considering its nature and peculiarities in spite of the adoption of a similar method of collection with some variation with regard to the latter. And because of this manifest intent of Congress, we have no other course of action than to hold that the two provisions are valid and binding, one being special, particularly applicable to income tax, and the other general, applicable to other kinds of internal revenue taxes. To hold otherwise would be to render nugatory and meaningless section 51(d) of our National Internal Revenue code, a conclusion not warranted by the circumstances, since it cannot be presumed that Congress has adopted it merely through an oversight. We find no sufficient justification for such conclusion." clubjuris

In other words, because in the aforesaid case we said that Sections 331 and 332 of the National Internal Revenue Code apply to internal revenue taxes in general and not to income taxes the collection of which is specifically provided for under a different title of the same Code, particularly Title II which refers exclusively to income tax, the Collector concludes that the right of the Government to assess and collect income taxes by judicial action has no definite period of limitation and so the deficiency income taxes for 1945, 1946 and 1947 which the Government is seeking to collect has not as yet prescribed.

But it should be noted that in expressing the opinion that the right to collect by summary methods can only be exercised within the period of three years from the time the return is filed, otherwise the right can only be enforced by judicial action, this Court did not say that the right to collect by judicial action is unlimited or inprescriptible. The only question on which we have been called upon to determine is whether Section 51 (d) of the National Internal Revenue Code, which refers to the collection of income taxes, shall be deemed to have been repealed by implication by Sections 331 and 332 of the same Code, which refers to internal revenue taxes in general, in view of their apparent conflicting provisions. We held then that said Section 51 cannot be deemed to have been repealed because it refers exclusively to income tax which is covered by a separate title of the Code and which Congress has intended to preserve in toto by incorporating it therein. This view is reflected in the following portion of our decision:ClubJuris

". . . A cursory reading of the provisions of our National Internal Revenue Code regarding the collection of income tax as distinguished from internal revenue taxes in general clearly reveals the intention of our legislative body to preserve in toto the procedure and method of collection originally adopted with regard to the former considering its nature and peculiarities in spite of the adoption of a similar method of collection with some variation with regard to the latter. And because of this manifest intent of Congress, we have no other course of action than to hold that the two provisions are valid and binding, one being special, particularly applicable to income tax, and the other general, applicable to other kinds of internal revenue taxes. To hold otherwise would be to render nugatory and meaningless section 51(d) of our National Internal Revenue Code, a conclusion not warranted by the circumstances, since it cannot be presumed that Congress has adopted it merely through an oversight. We find no sufficient justification for such conclusion." (The Collector of Internal Revenue V. Avelino, supra)

We notice, however, that Section 51 (d) of the National Internal Revenue code, which refers to the collection of income tax, does not provide for any prescriptive period insofar as the collection of income tax by judicial action is concerned, the prescriptive period therein mentioned being merely applicable to collection by summary methods, as interpreted by this Court. Considering this void in the law applicable to income tax, and bearing in mind that Section 331 of the Code which provides for the limitation upon assessment and collection by judicial action comes under Title IX, Chapter II, which refers to "CIVIL REMEDIES FOR COLLECTION OF TAXES", we may conclude that the provisions of said Section 331 are general in character which may be considered suppletory with regard to matters not covered by the title covering income tax. In other words, Title II of the Code is a special provision which governs exclusively all matters pertaining to income tax, whereas Title IX, Chapter II, is a geneal provision which governs all internal revenue taxes in general, which cannot apply insofar as it may conflict with the provisions of Title II as to which the latter shall prevail, but that in the absence of any provision in said Title II relative to the period and method of collection of the tax, the provisions of Title IX, Chapter II, may be deemed to be suppletory in character. Hence, in our opinion, the Court of Tax Appeals did not err in holding that the right of the Government to collect the deficiency income taxes for the years 1945, 1946 and 1947 has already prescribed under Section 331 of the National Internal Revenue Code.

Coming now to the appeal of the company, the following are the errors ascribed to the trial court: (1) in holding that the proceeding for review instituted by the company is equivalent to a judicial action within the purview of Section 332 (c) of the Tax Code; (2) in holding that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the tax assessments for the years 1948, 1949 and 1950 are presumptively correct; (3) in holding the company liable for the payment of the 1948, 1949 and 1950 tax assessments; and (4) in denying its motion for reconsideration and reopening to enable it, in the interest of justice, to introduce further evidence to prove the errors committed in the assessments for 1948, 1949 and 1950.

In holding that the appeal interposed by the company with the Court of Tax Appeals is equivalent to a judicial action within the purview of Section 332 (c) of the Tax Code, the Court of Tax Appeals made the following comment:ClubJuris

"We find his theory not well taken. The judicial action contemplated may refer not only to the civil case instituted by the government to collect the tax but also to a case where the taxpayer takes the initiative to contest the validity of the assessment or collection of taxes by the Collector of Internal Revenue. The objective in both cases is the same — the validity and correctness of the determination and collection of the tax. Thus, a single claim filed by the Collector of Internal Revenue against the estate of a deceased in a probate case has been recognized as tantamount to the judicial collection of taxes. (Collector v. Annie Laurie Haygood, 65 Phil., 520). On the other hand, in a claim for refund instituted against the Collector of Internal Revenue, the Supreme Court considered the taxpayer’s suit for refund as sufficient judicial action for the collection of taxes on the part of the former (see Phil. Sugar Estate Development Co., Inc. v. Posadas, 65 Phil., 216)." clubjuris

We agree with the foregoing view. Indeed, had the company not taken the matter to the Court of Tax Appeals, the Collector would have reasonably taken a similar action for, as it should be noted, he has already taken the preliminary step, which is the collection by distraint and levy, to insure the effective collection of the tax assessed against the company. And when the company appealed the Collector’s decision, the Collector was placed in the alternative of sustaining his decision, which is tantamount to a judicial action. As the Court of Tax Appeals well observed, "The objective in both cases is the same - the validity and correctness of the determination and collection of the tax." Indeed, the action of the Collector cannot be taken in any other light. It is a judicial action pure and simple.

The company argues that its failure to substantiate its defense insofar as the years 1945 to 1950 are concerned should not be held against it for there is no validity to the prima facie correctness of the Collector’s findings since the assessments are signed not by the Collector, nor by the chief of income tax division, but by one Casto Ayeras, who did not even reveal his position, nor state if he had any authority to sign for his chief. This contention is untenable, for a cursory examination of the assessment notices will show that they were duly signed by Ayeras in behalf of his chief, the Collector. Under the set-up of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the chief of the income tax division as regards tax assessments is possessed of delegated powers to issue assessment notices in behalf of the Collector of Internal Revenue. And in such a case, we may not infer that the decision is not the decision of the Collector himself. Nor is the fact that the tax assessments were not duly sworn to of any consequence, because tax assessments are not required by law to be under oath.

With regard to the second issue raised, what transpired during the trial is as follows: When the turn of the company to present its evidence with regard to the alleged errors committed in the assessment of the deficiency income taxes for the years 1948, 1949 and 1950 came, its counsel informed the court that he was abstaining from presenting any evidence in view of the theory he entertained that the interposition of the present appeal is not equivalent to a judicial action within the purview of the law, and he adopted this attitude in order that he may not be taken as having waived his right to press that legal question.

But counsel for the company took the action we have related above in spite of the suggestion of the court that he present his evidence without prejudice to having that legal question determined when the case is decided on the merits, but he remained adamant and desisted from presenting his evidence. And when the decision came contrary to his theory it was only then that he filed a motion for reopening in order that he may be given his chance to present evidence invoking the interest of justice. We agree with the Solictior General that such honest mistake on the part of counsel cannot be considered a ground for reopening the case for he has taken such action at his own risk. This is especially so when the court has already suggested that he present his evidence without prejudice of pressing the issue later and he disregarded the suggestion.

Since no evidence was presented to substantiate the errors that are claimed to have been committed by the Collector in making the assessment for the years 1948, 1949 and 1950, the trial court had no other alternative than to resort to the legal truism that "all presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax assessments." The burden of proof is on the taxpayer to show the contrary. This the company failed to do. This action finds support in the following authorities:ClubJuris

"All presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax assessments. The good faith of tax assessors and the validity of their actions are presumed. They will be presumed to have taken into consideration all the facts to which their attention was called. No presumption can be indulged that all of the public officials of the state in the various counties who have to do with the assessment of property for taxation will knowingly violate the duties imposed upon them by law.

"As a logical outgrowth of the presumption in favor of the validity of assessments, when such assessments are assailed, the burden of proof is upon the complaining party. It is incumbent upon the property owner clearly to show that the assessment was erroneous, in order to relieve himself from it.’ (51 Am. Jur. pages 620-621)." (Interprovincial Autobus Co., Inc. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 98 Phil., 290; 52 Off. Gaz., [2] 791.)

"When an importer challenges by legal steps the correctness of the assessment of a duty by the Collector of Customs, the question to be decided is not whether the Collector was wrong but whether the importer was right, the burden being on the latter to establish the correctness of his own contention." (Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Collector of Customs, 26 Phil., 647)

"That the determination of the tax deficiency by the Government has prima facie validity and the burden rests upon the taxpayer to overcome this presumption and to show to the satisfaction of the Tax Court that the determination was not correct." (Perez v. Court of Tax Appeals, Et Al., G. R. No. L-10507, May 30, 1958).

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



April-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12170 April 18, 1960 - PEOPLE’S SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. PAZ PUEY VDA. DE LIMCACO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO

    107 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-14133 April 18, 1960 - INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA v. PHIL. PORTS TERMINAL, INC.

    107 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-14159 April 18, 1960 - DANILO CHANNIE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. L-13282 April 22, 1960 - LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 636

  • G.R. No. L-12973 April 25, 1960 - BARENG v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS., ET AL.

    107 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-13317 April 25, 1960 - R. S. PAÑGILINAN & CO. v. HON. JUDGE L. PASICOLAN, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. L-13557 April 25, 1960 - DONATO LAJOM v. HON. JOSE N. LEUTERIO

    107 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-13981 April 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS RODRIGUEZ

    107 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-14224 April 25, 1960 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. LUCIO JAVILLONAR, ET AL.

    107 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-14889 April 25, 1960 - NORBERTO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. AMADO SANTIAGO, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-14901 April 25, 1960 - VERONICA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., v. MANUEL SAGALES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 673

  • G.R. No. L-11797. 27 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO BELTRAN

    107 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-12058 April 27, 1960 - JOSE BERNABE & CO., INC. v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC.

    107 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-12410 April 27, 1960 - MIGUEL G. PACTOR v. LUCRECIA P. PESTAÑO

    107 Phil 685

  • G.R. No. L-12639 April 27, 1960 - PABLO A. VELEZ v. PAV WATCHMEN’S UNION and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    107 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-12679 April 27, 1960 - MARIA C. VDA. DE LAPORE v. NATIVIDAD L. PASCUAL

    107 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-12917 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL LABATETE

    107 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. L-13222 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUILINO ARAGON and RAMON LOPEZ

    107 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-13224 April 27, 1960 - PEDRO TAN CONA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. L-13315 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA BULING

    107 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-13496 April 27, 1960 - Dy Shui Sheng v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-13653 April 27, 1960 - MUN. TREASURER OF PILI, CAMARINES SUR, ET AL. v. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ETC AND PALACIO

    107 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-13680 April 27, 1960 - MAURO LOZANA v. SERAFIN DEPAKAKIBO

    107 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. L-13708 April 27, 1960 - SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO., INC. v. GLOBE ASSURANCE CO., INC.

    107 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-14191 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE NARVAS

    107 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. L-14246 April 27, 1960 - TAN SENG PAO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

    107 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-14414 April 27, 1960 - SEVERINO SALEN and ELENA SALBANERA v. JOSE BALCE

    107 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. L-14576 April 27, 1960 - JOSE GONZALES, ET AL. v. BENIGNO ALDANA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-14967 April 27, 1960 - ORLANDO DE LEON v. HON. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. L-15435 April 27, 1960 - VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL. v. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-10831 28 April 28, 1960 - RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. MARIANO GONZAGA

    107 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-12741 28 April 28, 1960 - DEMETRIA FLORES v. PHIL. ALIEN PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR

    107 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-13118 April 28, 1960 - MACONDRAY & COMPANY, INC. v. DELGADO BROS. INC.

    107 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. L-13172 April 28, 1960 - GILBERT RILLON v. FILEMON RILLON

    107 Phil 783

  • G.R. No. L-13313 April 28, 1960 - AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE ASSN. OF HINIGARAN v. ESTANISLAO YULO YUSAY, ET AL.

    107 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-13385 April 28, 1960 - SOCORRO KE. LADRERA v. SEC. OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

    107 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-13501 April 28, 1960 - JOSE V. VILLASIN v. SEVEN-UP BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHILS.

    107 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-13718 April 28, 1960 - DEOGRACIAS REMO and MUN. OF GOA, CAM. SUR v. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO AND ANGEL ENCISO

    107 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-13911 April 28, 1960 - CESAR ROBLES, ET AL. v. DONATO TIMARIO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-14151 April 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENCARNACION JACOBO

    107 Phil 821

  • G.R. No. L-14248 April 28, 1960 - NEW MANILA LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14434 April 28, 1960 - EUSEBIO ESPINELI, ET AL. v. AMADO S. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-14606 April 28, 1960 - LAGUNA TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

    107 Phil 833

  • G.R. No. L-14713 April 28, 1960 - MARIAN AFAN v. APOLINARIO S. DE GUZMAN

    107 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-15012 April 28, 1960 - ANTONIO DIMALIBOT v. ARSENIO N. SALCEDO

    107 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. L-15416 April 28, 1960 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 849

  • Adm. Case No. 275 April 29, 1960 - GERVACIO L. LIWAG v. GILBERTO NERI

    107 Phil 852

  • G.R. No. L-7133 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN LAROSA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. L-9532 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO CATAO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-10675 April 29, 1960 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. ERNESTA CABAGNOT VDA. DE HIO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. L-11754 April 29, 1960 - SATURNINO D. VILLORIA v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. L-11773 April 29, 1960 - JUAN T. CHUIDIAN v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    107 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-12089 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRIA E. YANZA

    107 Phil 888

  • G.R. No. L-12165 April 29, 1960 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. ANTONIO VILLARAMA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 891

  • G.R. No. L-2180 April 29, 1960 - SOLOMON A. MAGANA v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-12189 April 29, 1960 - FRANCISCA GALLARDO v. HERMENEGILDA S. MORALES

    107 Phil 903

  • G.R. No. L-12270 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO CANO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-12256 April 29, 1960 - MANILA UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., INC. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ETC. ET AL.

    107 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-12503 April 29, 1960 - CONFEDERATED SONS OF LABOR v. ANAKAN LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

    107 Phil 915

  • G.R. No. L-12538 April 29, 1960 - GAUDENCIO LACSON v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

    107 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12644 April 29, 1960 - KOPPEL (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. RUSTICO A. MAGALLANES

    107 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12817 April 29, 1960 - JULIO D. ENRIQUEZ, SR. v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ

    107 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-12872 April 29, 1960 - DELGADO BROS., INC. v. LI YAO & COMPANY, ET AL.

    107 Phil 939

  • G.R. No. L-12945 April 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MARIANO R. LACSON

    107 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-12965 April 29, 1960 - CARMELINO MENDOZA v. JOSEFINA DE CASTRO

    107 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-13030 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MITRA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 951

  • G.R. Nos. L-13099 & L-13462 April 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO.

    107 Phil 965

  • G.R. No. L-13101 April 29, 1960 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. SILVERIO BLAQUERA

    107 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. L-13334 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO M. DURAN, JR.

    107 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-13459 April 29, 1960 - DEOMEDES S. ROJAS v. ROSA PAPA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. L-13500 April 29, 1960 - SUN BROTHERS & COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

    107 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-13569 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO RESPECIA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-13667 April 29, 1960 - PRIMITIVO ANSAY, ETC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

    107 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-13753 April 29, 1960 - DOMINGO CUI, ET AL. v. LUCIO ORTIZ, ETC.

    107 Phil 1000

  • G.R. No. L-13778 April 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC. v. UNION OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-13888 April 29, 1960 - NATIONAL SHIPYARD AND STEEL CORPORATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-14092 April 29, 1960 - SOLEDAD A. VERZOSA v. AUGUSTO BAYTAN, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-14271 April 29, 1960 - YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    107 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-14298 April 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BRICCIO INCIONG, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1024

  • G.R. No. L-14323 April 29, 1960 - ANTERO SORIANO, JR. v. EMILIO L. GALANG

    107 Phil 1026

  • G.R. No. L-14334 April 29, 1960 - CARLOS GOZON v. ISRAEL M. MALAPITAN, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-14347 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMUALDO LOPEZ

    107 Phil 1039

  • G.R. No. L-14487 April 29, 1960 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. DIEGO PEREZ

    107 Phil 1043

  • G.R. No. L-14548 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIO ANDRES

    107 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-14677 April 29, 1960 - MARGARITA LEYSON LAURENTE v. ELISEO CAUNCA

    107 Phil 1051

  • G.R. No. L-14880 April 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS

    107 Phil 1055

  • G.R. No. L-15048 April 29, 1960 - MARIANO QUITIQUIT v. SALVADOR VILLACORTA

    107 Phil 1060

  • G.R. No. L-15125 April 29, 1960 - FRANCISCA ROMASANTA v. FELIX SANCHEZ

    107 Phil 1065

  • G.R. No. L-15372 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE B. QUESADA

    107 Phil 1068

  • G.R. No. L-15609 April 29, 1960 - RAFAEL MARCELO v. EULOGIO MENCIAS ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 1071

  • G.R. No. L-15689 April 29, 1960 - MARIA GERVACIO BLAS, ET AL. v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1078

  • G.R. No. L-15838 April 29, 1960 - CAYETANO DANGUE v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1083

  • G.R. No. L-15966 April 29, 1960 - MAXIMA ACIERTO, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1088

  • G.R. No. L-12090 April 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1091

  • G.R. No. L-12716 April 30, 1960 - JOSE BALDIVIA, ET AL. v. FLAVIANO LOTA

    107 Phil 1099

  • G.R. No. L-12880 April 30, 1960 - FLORA A. DE DEL CASTILLO, ET AL. v. ISABEL S. DE SAMONTE

    107 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-12892 April 30, 1960 - CITY OF CEBU v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS and SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

    107 Phil 1112

  • G.R. No. L-13340 April 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO GUZMAN

    107 Phil 1122

  • G.R. No. L-13429 April 30, 1960 - LUIS SANCHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-13493 April 30, 1960 - LUCIANO DE LA ROSA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    107 Phil 1131

  • G.R. No. L-14117 April 30, 1960 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. JUANITO NASTOR

    107 Phil 1136

  • G.R. No. L-14277 April 30, 1960 - MANUEL L. FERNANDEZ v. ELOY B. BELLO

    107 Phil 1140

  • G.R. No. L-14580 April 39, 1960 - BEOFNATO ATAY, ET AL. v. DIEGO H. TY DELING, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1146

  • G.R. No. L-14714 April 30, 1960 - ARISTON ANDAYA, ET AL. v. MELENCIO MANANSALA

    107 Phil 1151

  • G.R. Nos. L-14881 & L-15001-7 April 30, 1960 - JOSE B. YUSAY v. HILARIO ALOJADO, ET. AL.

    107 Phil 1156

  • G.R. No. L-14925 April 30, 1960 - MARTA VDA. DE DE LA CRUZ v. GENARO TAN TORRES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1163