Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > April 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12716 April 30, 1960 - JOSE BALDIVIA, ET AL. v. FLAVIANO LOTA

107 Phil 1099:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12716. April 30, 1960.]

JOSE BALDIVIA, MARCELO CAPUNO, CARLlTO CATAPANG, ELISEO DIMACULANGAN, and RICARDO BATHAN, Petitioners-Appellants, v. FLAVIANO LOTA, as Mayor of Taal, Batangas, Respondent-Appellee.

Miguel Tolentino for Appellants.

Assistant Provincial Fiscal Gregorio C. Panganiban, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Eriberto D. Ignacio, for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE; REFUSAL OF MUNICIPAL MAYOR TO SIGN VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT OF LAWFUL CLAIMS AGAINST MUNICIPALITY, WHEN JUSTIFIED. — Article VI, section 23(2) of the Constitution of the Philippines, provides that "no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law." Pursuant thereto, section 2300 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that "disbursements of municipal funds shall be made by the municipal treasurer upon properly executed vouchers, pursuant to the budget and with approval of the mayor," and the budget must be incorporated into an appropriation ordinance, which shall be passed by the municipal council, in accordance with law (Sections 2237, 2295 and 2296, Revised Administrative Code). Where, therefore, as in the case at bar, there is no such budget or appropriation ordinance setting aside the sums necessary to pay the claims for leave pay of petitioners - members of the police force who resigned from the service - the mayor was, not only justified in refusing, but bound to refuse to approve the necessary vouchers.

2. ID.; ID.; REMEDY WHERE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND MUNICIPAL MAYOR FAILED TO APPROPRIATE SUM FOR PAYMENT OF LAWFUL CLAIMS AGAINST MUNICIPALITY. — Where the municipal mayor fails or refuses to submit or propose a budget for a just and legal claim against the municipality, or the municipal council fails to appropriate the necessary sum, the claimants may bring an action against the municipality for the recovery of what is due them and after securing a judgment therefor, seek a writ of mandamus against the municipal council and the municipal mayor to compel the enactment and approval of the appropriation ordinance necessary therefor (19 R.C.L. 1051-1052; 34 Am. Jur., 950-951; 35 Am. Jur., 21).


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


This is a petition for mandamus to compel respondent, Flaviano Lota, as Mayor of Taal, Batangas, to approve certain vouchers. In due course, the Court of First Instance of Batangas, presided over by Hon. Conrado M. Vasquez, Judge, denied the petition, without pronouncement as to costs. Hence, this appeal in which only questions of law are raised.

The facts, about which there is no dispute, are correctly set forth in the decision appealed from in the following language:ClubJuris

"The petitioners Jose Baldivia, Marcelo Capuno, Carlito Catapang, Eliseo Dimaculangan and Ricardo Bathan were former members of the police force of the municipality of Taal, province of Batangas. Shortly after the last election held in November 1955, the petitioners resigned from their positions. They have brought this instant action to compel the respondent Flaviano Lota in his capacity as municipal mayor of Taal, Batangas, to approve the vouchers submitted by the petitioners for the payment of the leave pay which they had in their favor at the time of their separation from the service.

"The evidence of the petitioners show that the petitioners resigned because they belong to a different political faction from that of the Respondent. In connection with their claim for their leave pay, they had gone to the Office of the President in Malacañang, and were able to secure a note from Assistant Executive Secretary Enrique c. Quema, addressed to the Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, requesting the latter to help the petitioners in securing the payment of their accumulated vacation and sick leave (Exhibit ‘A’). Acting on the said note of Mr. Quema, the Provincial Treasurer wrote separate letters to the respondent municipal mayor and to the municipal treasurer of Taal, Batangas, interceding in behalf of the petitioners and suggesting a manner by which their claim may be paid (Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘C’). The petitioner Jose Baldivia was actually able to receive one month leave pay on two separate occasions, on December 1, 1955, and February 10, 1956, respectively. The other petitioners were likewise able to receive one month leave pay each on February 10, 1956. The petitioners claim, however, that there is a balance remaining in their favor of unpaid vacation leave in the amount of three and one-half (3 1/2) months in the case of Jose Baldivia, and four months each in the case of the rest of the petitioners, all at the rate of P35.00 a month. The municipal treasurer prepared the corresponding vouchers for the payment of another one month vacation leave to each of the petitioner and submitted them to the respondent mayor for approval. The respondent, however, refused to approve the same." clubjuris

In justification for his act, respondent alleged that there is no appropriation for the amount covered by said vouchers; that petitioners held their positions illegally, they having served beyond the time limit prescribed by law for the effectivity of their appointments as temporary employees; and that said appointments were illegal, the same having been made without the consent of the municipal council, which is required in sections 2199 and 2200 of the Revised Administrative Code.

Commenting thereon, the lower court said:ClubJuris

"The parties are agreed that the municipal council of Taal has not approved any budget, regular or otherwise, for the payment of the leave pay being claimed by the petitioners. Aurelio Beron, municipal treasurer of Taal, testifying for the petitioners, had admitted that the previous payments made to the petitioner were in pursuance of a supplementary budget duly approved, but no budget has been authorized by the municipal council in connection with the payment of the balance of the leave pay corresponding to the petitioners. He stated, however, that the financial position of the municipal government permits the payment of the instant claim. The respondent municipal mayor has offered the excuse for the inability of the municipal council to appropriate the necessary funds on the alleged ground that the municipal government of Taal is heavily indebted to several government institutions, and the funds presently in its treasury are not sufficient to liquidate all of the said indebtedness. Moreover, the municipal government has other and more pressing obligations to meet before it could afford to set aside funds for the leave pay of the petitioners.

"Under the circumstances set forth above, the instant action of the petitioners must necessarily fail. If there are no funds validly appropriated for the purpose, the respondent municipal mayor, or anybody else for that matter, may not be compelled to approve a voucher for the payment of the claim. The disbursements of municipal fund is not the sole prerogative and responsibility of the municipal mayor. Section 2300 of the Revised Administrative Code explicity declares that ‘The disbursement of municipal funds shall be made by the municipal treasurer upon properly executed vouchers, pursuant to the budget, with the approval of the mayor.’ It would indeed be not only futile, but likewise illegal, for the mayor to approve a voucher to pay a claim for which no appropriation has been made by the council." clubjuris

Hence, the petition was denied, despite the sympathetic attitude of His Honor, the Trial Judge, towards the plight of petitioners herein. They, however, maintain that the decision appealed from should be reversed because they are clearly entitled to collect the equivalent of the unpaid portion of their terminal leave and the municipal government of Taal is in financial position to meet their respective claims, and because respondent’s inaction has had the effect of excluding them from getting what is due to them under the law.

Petitioners’ right to commutation of their terminal leave is indubitable. Pursuant, however, to our fundamental law, "no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law." (Article VI, section 23 (2), Constitution of the Philippines). Implementing this constitutional mandate, section 2300 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that "disbursements of municipal funds shall be made by the municipal treasurer upon properly executed vouchers, pursuant to the budget and with approval of the mayor," and the budget must be incorporated into an appropriation ordinance, which shall be passed by the municipal council, in accordance with law (sections 2237-2239, 2295 and 2296, Revised Administrative Code). There being, admittedly no such budget or appropriation ordinance setting aside the sums necessary to pay the claims of petitioners herein, it is apparent that respondent mayor was, not only justified in refusing, but bound to refuse to approve the vouchers in question.

At this point, we cannot overlook, however, the well-considered observations made in the decision appealed from respecting the behaviour of respondent herein as a public officer. We quote, from said decision:ClubJuris

". . . while the Court feels itself powerless to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioners, it could not help but express its sympathy with their situation, and its displeasure with the manner by which they had been deprived of a claim which appeared to be valid and meritorious. This case is another manifestation of that unfortunate phenomenon in local politics in this country wherein considerations of public interest have been set aside for the satisfaction of petty factional jealousies and sacrificed on the altar of political rivalries. The instant petitioners are claiming only what is due them nothing more, nothing less. The payment of leave pay to an employee who has been separated from the service and who generally depends for his continued sustenance on such amounts as may be collected by him by reason of his past services, is not only an expression of simple justice on the part of the government, but is also designed for the maintenance of the loftier ideal of morale in the public service. The respondent in this case has shown unusual interest not for the purpose of affording the petitioners the justice that is due them, but in his attempt to find ways and means of defeating the petitioners’ claim. The respondent has admitted that he had spent over a thousand pesos in going to different government offices and in making several trips to Manila to consult with ‘legal luminaries’ to research and find reasons to justify his refusal to pay the petitioners. It is ironic indeed that in so doing, he actually spent more than what the petitioners are claiming to be the balance of their unpaid leave. It may well be said that had the respondent instead spent his money, time and effort to look for means by which he could pay the petitioners, he would have dedicated himself to a worthier cause and with decidedly lesser effort and expense." clubjuris

Indeed, respondent could have, and should have, either included the claim of petitioners herein in the general budget he is bound to submit, pursuant to section 2295 of the Revised Administrative Code, or prepared a special budget for said claim, and urged the municipal council to appropriate the sum necessary therefor. In any event, if the municipal mayor fails or refuses to make the necessary appropriation, petitioners may bring an action against the municipality for the recovery of what is due them and after securing a judgment therefor, seek a writ of mandamus against the municipal council and the municipal mayor to compel the enactment and approval of the appropriation ordinance necessary therefor (19 R. C. L. 1051- 1052; 34 Am. Jur., 950-951; 35 Am. Jur., 21).

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, 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