Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-13803 & L-13400 May 23, 1960 - JOSE DE LA PAZ v. MD TRANSIT AND TAXICAB CO., INC.

108 Phil 126:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. L-13803 & L-13400. May 23, 1960.]

JOSE DE LA PAZ, Petitioner, v. MD TRANSIT AND TAXICAB CO., INC., Respondent. FORTUNATO F. HALILI, Petitioner, v. MD TRANSIT AND TAXICAB CO., INC., Respondent.

Evaristo R. Sandoval for petitioner de la Cruz.

Arnaldo J. Guzman for petitioner F. F. Halili.

Graciano C. Regala for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; RULE WHERE DECISION IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE; CASE AT BAR. — The settled rule is that if the decision of he Public Service Commission is supported by the evidence, it should not be disturbed on appeal. In the case at bar, there is substantial evidence submitted to prove the public need of the new line approved, because it would greatly enhance the convenience of any of the laborers and employees of the new industrial and commercial establishments along the route.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


Jose de la Paz in G. R. No. L-13803 and Fortunato F. Halili in G. R. No. L-13400 seek a review of a judgment of the Public Service Commission dated December 17, 1957, deciding Cases Nos. 102656 (entitle MD Transit and Taxicab Co., Inc., applicant), 103916, etc. The decision sought to be reviewed herein and reversed grants a certificate of public convenience to the respondent MD Transit and Taxicab to operate 5 auto trucks from the Bonifacio Monument, Grace Park, thru Samson Street, Highway 54, Ayala Boulevard and Buendia Streets, to the intersection of Buendia Avenue and Taft Avenue, Makati, Rizal.

The question presented to Us is, Is there a public need for the direct line applied for by the respondent transportation company.

Applicant presented documentary and testimonial evidence. The documents submitted are petitions, Exhibits D to R, of several manufacturing companies for the operation of the line applied for. The testimonies of Miguel Heras, Manager of the respondent company, and Gerardo Occidental, a laborer working in California Manufacturing located at Buendia, Makati, Rizal were presented. Briefly stated their testimonies are as follows:clubjuris

Miguel Heras said that the proposed line will serve about 2,000 employees of the factories along Buendia Avenue, such as Yupangco, Sherwin Williams, Breeding Industries of the Philippines, Metro Drug, Squibb, Aircon, Cafe Puro, Stalco, American Wire and Cable Company, Synclair, etc.; that he had on various dates made personal observations of the traffic at the Bonifacio Monument and at Buendia Avenue; that many of the employees live in Grace Park, near the Bonifacio Monument, the Philippine-American compound, Cubao, Guadalupe, Project 6, Bago Bantay, etc., while are all along Highway 54; that only the Marikina Valley buses owned by oppositor Jose de la Paz operate directly from the Bonifacio Monument to Baclaran via Highway 54, but do not pass Buendia Avenue; that these employees coming from Grace Park have to ride to Quiapo first, then from Quiapo to the corner of Taft and Buendia Avenues, and from there take a jeepney to their places of employment, and that they follow the reverse route in going home; that the factories are about 6 kilometers from the intersection of Highway 54 and Buendia Avenue; that he has received written requests for the operation of the new line from several companies; that there are about 35 auto-calesas operating from the corner of Taft Avenue and Buendia Street to the factories.

Gerardo Occidental declared that he had worked in the California Manufacturing for over 1 year; that coming from his house at Samson Road near the Bonifacio Monument, he has to take a jeepney to Quiapo, then from Quiapo, take a Super Transit to Buendia corner Taft Avenue and from there ride in a jeepney to the place he is working; that he follows the reverse route in going home, and that he spends P0.80 a day for fare; that he works at 7:00 a.m., but he had to start at home at 5:30 a.m. to be on time; that there is no other means of transportation coming from his house to his place of work, except through Quiapo.

The oppositors, on the other hand, presented the reports of the two Commission agents, the data of employees working in the factories along Buendia issued by the Bureau of Labor (Exhibits 8-12), photographs of jeepneys operating along Buendia Avenue, etc. In addition they have presented several witnesses, whose testimonies are briefly stated as follows:clubjuris

Ambrosio Salmon, agent of the Public Service Commission, testified that he with another agent, V. Resurreccion, checked up volume of traffic in Bankal, Makati, Rizal, from December 15 to 24, 1956, and in Barrio Kangkong, Quezon City (near the Bonifacio Monument), from January 10 to 15, 1957, to determine passenger load of buses coming from Bonifacio Monument going to Baclaran via Highway 54; that they prepared a report of their checking, Exhibits 1 and 2; that only the Marikina Valley with 10 units operate directly from the Monument to Baclaran; that the conductor reported the number of passengers while Resurreccion counted the passengers; that the average load on December 15, 1956, from 6:00 AM is 31.5%, or 19 passengers, and the average load is obtained by dividing the number of passengers by the total number of trips and the result divided by the registered passenger capacity of the buses.

Pio Santos, inspector of the Bureau of Labor, presented the data of employees from the Bureau of Labor (Exhibits 8-12).

Lorenzo de la Peña, driver, residing at Makati, Rizal, declared that he operates an auto-calesa belonging to Teodoro Reyes from the corner of Buendia-Taft Avenues to Pasong Tamo, San Lorenzo Village and Highway 54; that he is president of the Buendia Owners and Drivers Association, and that there are 35 auto-calesas operating at the junction; that he sometimes have only 1 or 2 passengers at the junction to be carried to the factories or to any place along Buendia Avenue; that most of his passengers come from Parañaque, Pasay and Las Piñas; that no other TPU operators operate along Buendia and Highway 54 from Forbes Park. He presented pictures of the auto-calesas.

Benjamin Faustino, special watchman at the piers, residing at 108 Turconi St., Makati, Rizal, declared that he never experienced dearth of transportation, but he admitted he leaves his house at 5:00 PM and returns at 7:00 AM every day, except Sundays.

Estelito Lorello, driver, residing at Leveriza, Pasay City, and Eduardo Tarape, conductor, residing at Perlas, Pasay City, declared they were driver and conductor, respectively, of the Master Liner sometime in 1954 or 1955; that the Master Liner did not last one month due to lack of passengers. Both admit, however, that they stopped working along the line since then.

Ricardo de Leon, inspector at large of the Halili Transit, made observations of the volume of passengers in the junction of Highway 54 and Ayala Boulevard; that he observed that in the morning at around 6 to 8:00, there are only a handful of passengers getting off at the junction; that during the rush hours (6 to 8 AM) all buses are loaded, but thereafter, only around 10 to 15. On cross-examination, he admitted that there are times, some-times 2 or 3 days, when he cannot inspect the traffic along Highway 54; that passengers coming from Bonifacio Monument do not get off at the corner of Ayala Boulevard and Highway 54 because they have to take their jeepneys at the corner of Taft-Buendia Avenues.

Pedro Calambra, inspector of the Marikina Valley Bus Company, declared that he inspects the buses of the company coming from Bonifacio Monument going to Baclaran from 6:00 to 12:00 AM., then from 3:00 to 7:00 PM; that the passenger load is about 30 during rush hours and thereafter, from 15 to 19 passengers only; that the Halili Transit operates from Project 4 to Baclaran via Highway 54, and aside from these buses there are more 30 jitneys operating along Highway 54; that the Medina Transit, with trip interval of 15 minutes operate from Forbes Park to Manila via Buendia Avenue.

Jose de la Paz, operator of the Marikina Valley transportation company, declared that he started operating with 5 units from the Bonifacio Monument to Baclaran via Highway 54, but increased it to 10 units on December 12, 1956; that he observed that during rush hours from Bonifacio Monument his buses usually carry from 8 to 12 passengers and average of 30 to 40 passengers per trip, dropping and picking; that during off-rush hours the buses usually start with 2 or 3 passengers at the Monument and picks up to 10 or 12 at Balintawak, and average 12 to 22 passengers every trip; that the distance from the Bonifacio Monument to the junction of Ayala Boulevard and Highway 54 is about 20 kilometers; up to Baclaran is 24 kilometers; from the junction to the inter-section of Taft and Buendia Avenues is 4 kilometers, and from the junction to the factories is 2 kilometers; that Medina Transit and jitneys operate along Buendia Avenue. He admits however that there is no direct line from Highway 54 to Camp Nichols; that there are about 25 factories along Highway 54 and 15 to 17 along Buendia Avenue; that he asked in December, 1956 for an additional 5 units to operate along the line; that there is no direct line from Bonifacio Monument to Buendia, by way of Taft Avenue or by way of Highway 54; that the employees had to ride to Quiapo or to Plaza Sta. Cruz, then from there ride again to the corner of Taft- Buendia Avenues, and from this point ride again to their place of work; that there are cases during rush hours when his buses are loaded; that after he operated the line the number of jitneys operating thereon have increased; that those riding from Cubao or Project 4 have to get off at the intersection to Ayala Boulevard and Highway 54 and get another ride; that there are houses along Buendia street.

Upon the above evidence, the Public Service Commission found public necessity for the operation of the line and granted the respondent company authority to operate 10 units.

The Supreme Court has time and again held that if the decision of the Public Service Commission is supported by the evidence, the decision should not be disturbed on appeal (Inchausti Steamship Co. v. Public Utility Commissioner, 44 Phil. 363; Raymundo Trans. Co. v. Cervo, 91 Phil., 313; Padua v. Ocampo, Et Al., G. R. No. L-7579, Sept. 17, 1955; Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. M. Ruiz Highway Transit, 107 Phil., 143).

The Public Service Commission found the following facts; Buendia has grown into a commercial and industrial center with the construction of not less than 32 factories, employing about 2,000 laborers. Most of these laborers live in Malabon, Grace Park and in small communities along Highway 54. There is no direct line from the Bonifacio Monument to the factories, so that the laborers have to ride three times daily to arrive at their place of work. The line of oppositor Jose de la Paz, which is from Bonifacio Monument to Baclaran, and of the other oppositor, Fortunato F. Halili, which is from Project 4 to Baclaran via Highway 54, do not reach the factories along Buendia street. It is obvious that a direct line would minimize the transportation expenses of these laborers and would greatly add to the convenience of the riding public. The Commission also considered the fact that there are government offices transacting business with the public along Highway 54, such as the Motor Vehicles Office, the Quezon City Hall, Camp Crame, Camp Murphy and others, and there are also places of business and recreation in Cubao; that there are also about 25 factories scattered along Highway 54 and these establishments employ hundreds of employees and laborers; that the novenas on Wednesdays in Baclaran have constantly attracted the devout and pious from Malabon, Caloocan and Quezon City; and that there are employees living along Highway 54 who take the buses along said road in going to their places of work in Manila, and all these people have to be served by the buses and jitneys operating along the line. The people going to Buendia may have preferred to take other lines, instead of taking Highway 54.

The above considerations made by the Commission justify the approval of the new line granted the Respondent. The report of the checkers of the volume of traffic along Highway 54 does not argue against the grant of the new line because, as shown by the evidence of respondent, employees working on factories in Buendia Street living around and beyond the Bonifacio Monument, prefer to ride thru the city, making various transfers, and do not ride in the buses passing Highway 54, perhaps not finding it convenient to transfer from said buses at the Ayala Boulevard — Highway 54 intersection. But if the new line is established, more passengers would be attracted and those passing thru the city would travel along the new line instead.

We are fully satisfied that there is substantial evidence submitted to prove the public need of the new line approved, because it would greatly enhance the convenience of many of the laborers and employees of the new industrial and commercial establishments on and close to Buendia Street. The decision of the Commission, therefore, is hereby affirmed, with costs against each of the petitioners. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Concepción, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



May-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12007 May 16, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    108 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13831 May 16, 1960 - DIOSDADO CHAVEZ v. BUENAVENTURA GANZON

    108 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-13092 May 18, 1960 - EMILIA MENDOZA v. CAMILO BULANADI

    108 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-13208 May 18, 1960 - OREN IGO v. NATIONAL ABACA CORP.

    108 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-13783 May 18, 1960 - FRANCISCO CAPALUNGAN v. FULGENCIO MEDRANO

    108 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-15300 May 18, 1960 - MANUEL REGALADO v. PROVINCIAL CONSTABULARY COMMANDER OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

    108 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. L-10948 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO MORTERO

    108 Phil 31

  • G.R. Nos. L-11795-96 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RECARIDO JARDENIL

    108 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-12446 May 20, 1960 - ELISEO SILVA v. BELEN CABRERA

    108 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-12546 May 20, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS P. PAREDES

    108 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-12726 May 20, 1960 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. VISITACION CONSUNTO

    108 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-13046 May 20, 1960 - EGMIDIO T. PASCUA v. PEDRO TUASON

    108 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-13372 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO SABUERO

    108 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-13484 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR CAMERINO

    108 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-13836 May 20, 1960 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-13846 May 20, 1960 - PANGASINAN EMPLOYEES, LABORERS AND TENANTS ASSN. v. ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ

    108 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-14332 May 20, 1960 - KAPISANAN SA MRR CO. v. CREDIT UNION

    108 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-14355 May 20, 1960 - JOSE D. DACUDAO v. AGUSTIN D. DUEÑAS

    108 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-14388 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIANO DAYRIT

    108 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-14426 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN BAYONA

    108 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-9651 May 23, 1960 - POLICARPIO MENDEZ v. SENG KIAM

    108 Phil 109

  • G.R. Nos. L-10046-47 May 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON RODRIGUEZ

    108 Phil 118

  • G.R. Nos. L-13803 & L-13400 May 23, 1960 - JOSE DE LA PAZ v. MD TRANSIT AND TAXICAB CO., INC.

    108 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-13806 May 23, 1960 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-13965 May 23, 1960 - CONSTANTINO LEDUNA, ET., AL. v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ

    108 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-14981 May 23, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. MARCELINO SARMIENTO

    108 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15339 May 23, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-15485 May 23, 1960 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-16445 May 23, 1960 - VICENTE ACAIN v. BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CARMEN

    108 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-12624 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GANTANG KASIM

    108 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-12690 May 25, 1960 - ARCADIO M. QUIAMBAO v. ANICETO MORA

    108 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-12766 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. S. JACALA, ET., AL.

    108 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-12916 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO AQUIDADO

    108 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-13296 May 25, 1960 - SOFRONIO T. UNTALAN v. VICENTE G. GELLA

    108 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-13391 May 25, 1960 - AUREA MATIAS v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES

    108 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-13464 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-13651 May 25, 1960 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF JARO v. HIGINO MILITAR

    108 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-13711 May 25, 1960 - GREGORIO SALAZAR v. JUSTINIANA DE TORRES

    108 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-13819 May 25, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BLAS GUTIERREZ

    108 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-13933 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    108 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-14115 May 25, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SUPERIOR GAS AND EQUIPMENT CO.

    108 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-14134 May 25, 1960 - BISHOP OF LEGASPI v. MANUEL CALLEJA

    108 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. L-14214 May 25, 1960 - RICHARD VELASCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-14500 May 25, 1960 - QUIRINA PACHOCO v. AGRIPINA TUMANGDAY

    108 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-14515 May 25, 1960 - ENRIQUE ZOBEL v. GUILLERMO MERCADO

    108 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-14590 May 25, 1960 - FERNANDO DATU v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON

    108 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-14619 May 25, 1960 - MIGUEL YUVIENGCO v. PRIMITIVO GONZALES

    108 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-14722 May 25, 1960 - IGNACIO MESINA v. EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA

    108 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-15132 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO B. CRUZ

    108 Phil 255

  • G.R. Nos. L-16341 & L-16470 May 25, 1960 - ADRIANO RABE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    108 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12150 May 26, 1960 - BENJAMIN CO., v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12876 May 26, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL UNITED WORKERS, INC.

    108 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-13847 May 26, 1960 - DOMINADOR BORDA v. ENRIQUE TABALON

    108 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. L-14319 May 26, 1960 - EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA v. SUSANO R. NEGADO

    108 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. L-15073 May 26, 1960 - OPERATOR’S INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    108 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-15144 May 26, 1960 - ALFREDO A. AZUELO v. RAMON ARNALDO

    108 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-15777 May 26, 1960 - ANTONIO NIPAY v. JOSE M. MANGULAT

    108 Phil 297

  • G.R. Nos. L-14254 & L-14255 May 27, 1960 - STA. CECILLA SAWMILLS CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 300

  • G.R. Nos. L-10371 & L-10409 May 30, 1960 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. DANIEL RAYALA

    108 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-11551 May 30, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALFONSO FAVIS

    108 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-12260 May 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FARM IMPLEMENT

    108 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-12627 May 30, 1960 - ALFONSO TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-12798 May 30, 1960 - VISAYAN CEBU TERMINAL CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    108 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-12907 May 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO AMBAHANG

    108 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-12958 May 30, 1960 - FAUSTINO IGNACIO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    108 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-12963 May 30, 1960 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. ALFONSO YUCHENGCO

    108 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-13034 May 30, 1960 - GREGORIO ARONG v. VICTOR WAJING

    108 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-13153 May 30, 1960 - GLICERIO ROMULO v. ESTEBAN DASALLA

    108 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. L-13223 May 30, 1960 - OSCAR MENDOZA ESPUELAS v. PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF BOHOL

    108 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. L-13412 May 30, 1960 - DESTILLERIA LIM TUACO & COMPANY, INC. v. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

    108 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-13419 May 30, 1960 - CASIANO SALADAS v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY

    108 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-13662 May 30, 1960 - CEFERINO ESTEBAN v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

    108 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. L-13793 May 30, 1960 - PACIFIC LINE, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    108 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-13845 May 30, 1960 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY

    108 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-13910 May 30, 1960 - MANILA YELLOW TAXI-CAB, INC. v. EDMUNDO L. CASTELO

    108 Phil 394

  • G.R. Nos. L-14069 & L-14149 May 30, 1960 - UY HA v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

    108 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. L-14280 May 30, 1960 - JUAN YSMAEL & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-14342 May 30, 1960 - CIRIACO L. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-14391 May 30, 1960 - GENARO SENEN v. MAXIMA A. DE PICHAY

    108 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14392 May 30, 1960 - ALBERTO FERNANDEZ v. PABLO CUNETA

    108 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-14459 May 30, 1960 - AGRINELDA N. MICLAT v. ELVIRA GANADEN

    108 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-14681 May 30, 1960 - ROSARIO PO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    108 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-14691 May 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO N. TEVES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-14700 May 30, 1960 - BENITO R. GUINTO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-14800 May 30, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. CITY OF MANILA

    108 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-14949 May 30, 1960 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 469

  • G.R. Nos. L-14991-94 May 30, 1960 - JAIME T. BUENAFLOR v. CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORP.

    108 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-15044 May 30, 1960 - BELMAN COMPAÑIA INCORPORADA v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. L-15198 May 30, 1960 - EDUARDO J. JALANDONI v. NARRA

    108 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. L-15344 May 30, 1960 - JOSE R. VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-15550 May 30, 1960 - AMADO TAGULAO v. FORTUNATA PADLAN- MUNDOK

    108 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-15614 May 30, 1960 - GSISEA v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA

    108 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-15696 May 30, 1960 - ELPIDIO LLARENA v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-15792 May 30, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. ANDRES REYES

    108 Phil 513

  • G.R. Nos. L-16837-40 May 30, 1960 - EUSTAQUIO R. CAWA v. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO

    108 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-10843 May 31, 1960 - EVANGELINE WENZEL v. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC.

    108 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-11555 May 31, 1960 - DELFIN CUETO v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-11805 May 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC.

    108 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-12068 May 31, 1960 - EUFROCINA TAMISIN v. AMBROCIO ODEJAR

    108 Phil 560

  • G.R. Nos. L-13033 & L-13701 May 31, 1960 - LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-13295 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO MARIO

    108 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13523 May 31, 1960 - ANICETO MADRID v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-13578 May 31, 1960 - MARCIANO A. ROXAS v. FLORENCIO GALINDO

    108 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. L-13858 May 31, 1960 - CANUTO PAGDAÑGANAN v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    108 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 13946 May 31, 1960 - MARSMAN AND COMPANY, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-14015 May 31, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO

    108 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-14020 May 31, 1960 - MANILA LETTER CARRIER’S ASSN. v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-14201 May 31, 1960 - OLEGARIO BRITO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-14595 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. GREGORIO MONTEJO

    108 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14749 May 31, 1960 - SILVESTRE PINGOL v. AMADO C. TIGNO

    108 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-14885 May 31, 1960 - MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. MARCELINO S. MANALO

    108 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-14907 May 31, 1960 - PURA M. DE LA TORRE v. VENANCIO TRINIDAD

    108 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-15074 May 31, 1960 - CARMEN FUENTES v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA

    108 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-15122 May 31, 1960 - PAQUITO SALABSALO v. FRANCISCO ANGCOY

    108 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-15130 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLIMACO DEMIAR

    108 Phil 651