Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12766 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. S. JACALA, ET., AL.

108 Phil 177:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-12766. May 25, 1960.]

PHILIPPINE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, v. S. JACALA, D. TIBURCIO, E. CAPULONG, H. TEJADA, G. TEJADA, D. GABITANAN, M. GABITANAN, J. DELUMPA, A. JAVIER, E. VILLAFUERTE, E. PIKE, E. ROZO, R. TULUNGAN, E. QUIJADA, F. FRANCISCO, WILDRINO LABRIOGA, JARANILLA AGUSTIN, PASQUIN FELIPE, JAIME RAFAEL, IBAÑEZ GABRIEL, GACHERO PAULINO, LUMANOG CLAUDIO, TEOFILO PRADA, S. VILLANUEVA, A. JOAQUIN, R. BACUNGAN, R. ALHAMBRA, F. DUMANDAN, G. FIGUEROA, G. PALAD, A. JAVIER, P. GONZALES, C. ESPAÑOLA, A. FELIPE, A. BOMBATE, MACARIO M. OFILADA and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

Delgado, Flores & Macapagal for Petitioner.

Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Emerito M. Salva for the Government.

Nestor C. Lim for respondent CIR.

Remigio M. Tividad for the other respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CERTIORARI; WHEN WRIT MAY BE APPLIED FOR; CASE AT BAR. — A writ of certiorari may be applied for only when there is "no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." In the case at bar, the surety could have appealed from the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, but it did not. It not only failed to take any step to have the decision reviewed for over 3 years; it even satisfied part of its obligations under the decision by making several payments to the claimants.

2. VENUE; PROVISIONS OF ACT NO. 3688 RELATIVE TO ACTIONS ON PERFORMANCE BONDS; QUESTIONS OF VENUE WAIVABLE. — The provisions of Act No. 3688, relative to the place where actions on performance bonds should be brought, regulate venue, which is a procedural, not a jurisdictional matter. Although in the instant case the surety claims to have raised the question of venue in the Court of Industrial Relations, its failure to appeal from the decision thereof implies an abandonment of its right to press said question, which may be waived (Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, 20 Phil., 523; Samson v. Carvatala, 50 Phil., 647; Katigbak v. Tai Hing Co., 52 Phil., 622; De la Rosa v. De Borja, 53 Phil., 990; Abuton v. Paler, 54 Phil., 519; Marques Lim Cay v. Del Rosario, 55 Phil., 692; Central Azucarera de Tarlac v. De Leon, 56 Phil., 169; Navarro v. Aguila, 66 Phil., 604).

3. LABOR LAWS; SETTLEMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES; INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN ACT NO. 3688 AND COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 103. — In case of inconsistency, the provisions of Act No. 3688 must be deemed repealed by those of Commonwealth Act No. 103, insofar as the settlement of "all questions, matters, controversies or disputes arising between and/or affecting employers and employees or laborers . . ." (Sec. 1, C.A. No. 103), is concerned.

4. ACTIONS; PROVISIONS OF ACT NO. 3368 WHICH AFFECT CAUSE OF ACTION; STATUS OF DECISION RENDERED IN FAVOR OF LABORERS WHO FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SAID PROVISIONS. — The provisions of Act No. 3688, to the effect that actions upon performance bonds must be brought, either by the Government or by those who supplied labor or materials, suing in the name of the Government, merely affect the cause of action, not the jurisdiction to hear the case and render therein a valid decision. A decision rendered in favor of laborers who failed to comply with such provisions would, at best, be erroneous, but, once final, it would conclusively establish their right to the remedy granted.

5. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; QUESTION OF AMOUNT OF EXTENT OF LIABILITY OF SURETY IN FAVOR OF LABORERS UNDER PERFORMANCE BONDS; JURISDICTION NOT AFFECTED. — The question of the amount or extent of the liability of the surety in favor of the laborers, under the performance bonds given by the former, affects merely the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision in the instant case, not the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations to render said decision or its validity, and, consequently, is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


This is a special civil action for a writ of certiorari to annul the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, dated March 2, 1954, in Case No. 529-V thereof, and an alias writ of execution of said decision, dated August 7, 1957. Petitioner herein, Philippine Surety and Insurance Company, Inc., likewise, prayed for, and, upon the filing of the requisite bond, we issued, a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining respondent Sheriff of Manila from complying with said writ of execution and from selling certain properties of said petitioner herein.

On March 20, 1950, herein petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the surety, executed two (2) performance bonds, in favor of the Republic of the Philippines — one for P103,343.00, and another for P15,927.00 — to guarantee the faithful discharge, by the International Construction and Engineering Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the contractor, of its obligations under two (2) contracts, one for the construction of the Bugallon Bridge, province of Pangasinan, and another for the construction of the Concepcion Bridge, province of Tarlac, pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 3688. On or about December 4, 1950, S. Jacala and thirty-four (34) other persons, hereafter referred to as laborers, who claim to have worked in said construction, as laborers and/or employees of the contractor, and to have been illegally dismissed by the latter, instituted Case No. 529-V of the Court of Industrial Relations against said contractor, the surety, and Manuel Padilla and Leon Patlach, president and vice- president, as well as general manager, respectively of the contractor, for alleged unpaid wages and one (1) month separation pay. On February 16, 1954, said Court of Industrial Relations rendered a decision the dispositive part of which reads, as follows:ClubJuris

"In view of the foregoing considerations, respondents International Construction & Engineering Co., Inc. and Philippine Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. should be, as they are hereby, directed to pay jointly and severally all the employees and in the amount appearing in the payrolls (Exhibit ‘C’ and ‘D’) submitted by the Director of Public Works, minus whatever amounts in ‘value’ or advances and/or value of material or materials taken by any of them; that respondent International Construction & Engineering Co., Inc. is hereby further directed to pay one month separation pay to each of the petitioners; and that, insofar as Manuel L. Padilla and Leon Patlach are concerned, the petition herein is hereby DISMISSED." clubjuris

No appeal having been taken from this decision, the same became final and executory. On motion of the laborers, the Court of Industrial Relations issued on August 26, 1957, an alias writ of execution of said decision and, in pursuance of said alias writ, respondent Sheriff of Manila caused the office equipment and other properties of the surety to be distrained and levied upon and threatened to sell said properties, at public auction, on September 4, 1957, "for the recovery of the sum of P33,000.00, etc., with interest costs", which is seemingly the balance still due under the decision aforementioned. To suspend this auction sale and annul said decision, the surety instituted the present special civil action, against the laborers, the clerk of court of the Court of First Instance of Manila, as ex officio Sheriff of the City of Manila, and the Court of Industrial Relations, for the purposes stated above, upon the theory that the aforementioned decision of the Court of Industrial Relations and the alias writ of execution thereof are null and void because:clubjuris

1. The Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decide said case No. 529-V, for, pursuant to Act No. 3688, actions upon performance bonds, such as those executed by the surety, shall be brought, (a) either by the Government or by the persons who furnished labor or construction materials, but in the name of the Government of the Philippine Islands, (b) after the complete performance of the respective construction contracts and final settlement thereof, (c) in the court of first instance of the district in which said construction contracts are to be performed and executed, in the case at bar, in Pangasinan and Tarlac, and the Bugallon Bridge, as well as the Concepcion Bridge were still incomplete when the aforementioned Case No. 529-V was instituted;

2. The Supreme Court held in Cristitu Bautista v. Auditor General, 97 Phil., 244; 53 Off. Gaz. [13] 4098, that the Government had to spend P530,806.41, in excess of the price stipulated with the contractor, in order to complete the construction of the Bugallon Bridge, which had been abandoned by said contractor, and, pursuant to Act No. 3688, the claim of the Government for said sum of P530,806.41, which far exceeds the P103,343 performance bond of the surety, enjoys priority over other claims, and that, there being no amount due the contractor from the Government upon which the money claim of the petitioners in said case could be drawn, it followed that the denial by the Auditor General of the claim filed by said petitioners therein is in accordance with law, so that the laborers in the case at bar "did not have . . . any right of action to proceed and sue against the bonds for their unpaid wages and salaries," which "is an exclusive liability of the contractor", according to said decision.

In compliance with an order of this Court, the surety included the Government of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Public Works, as one of the defendants in the case at bar. This defendant filed an answer alleging, inter alia, that the contractor failed to construct the Bugallon Bridge thereby becoming liable to the Government of the Philippines in the sum of P530,806.41; that said contractor, likewise, failed to construct the Concepcion Bridge, and, in consequence thereof, was sentenced, in Civil Case No. 14952 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, to pay P15,927.00 to the Government; and that, under the law, the claim of the Government for these two (2) amounts enjoys priority over all other claims.

The petition herein is clearly untenable, for the following reasons:clubjuris

1. A writ of certiorari may be applied for only when there is "no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." As one of the defendants in said Case No. 529-V of the Court of Industrial Relations, the surety could have appealed from its decision therein, and such appeal would have afforded the surety a "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." Yet, the surety did not appeal from said decision. It did not merely fail to take any step to have it reviewed from March 2, 1954, when it was rendered, to August 26, 1957, when the aforementioned alias writ of execution was issued, or for over three (3) years and five (5) months. It even satisfied part of its obligations under said decision, by making several payments, aggregating approximately P9,000.00. The writ of certiorari may not be availed of in these circumstances (Claudio v. Zandueta, 64 Phil., 812; Haw Pia v. San Jose, 77 Phil., 238; Dans v. Court of Appeals, 93 Phil., 564; 49 Off. Gaz. 2753; Santos v. Court of Appeals, 95 Phil., 360; David v. Miranda, L-6215 [promulgated September 28, 1954]), specially considering that the surety had not made use of its right to appeal through its own negligence (Government of U. S. v. Judge of First Instance of Pampanga, 50 Phil., 975; Profeta, Et Al., v. Gutiérrez, Et Al., 71 Phil., 582), if not intentionally. Indeed, there is reason to believe that the decisions of this Court in Cristitu Bautista v. Auditor General, supra, (promulgated on June 29, 1955) is what impelled the surety to question the legality of the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations in said Case No. 529-V after having begun to satisfy the same, as pointed out above.

2. The provisions of Act No. 3688, relative to the place where actions on performance bonds should be brought regulate venue, which is a procedural, not a jurisdictional matter. Although the surety claims to have raised the question of venue in the Court of Industrial Relations, its failure to appeal from the decision thereof implies an abandonment of its right to press said question, which may be waived (Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, 20 Phil., 523; Samson v. Carvatala, 50 Phil., 647; Katigbak v. Tai Hing Co., 52 Phil., 622; De la Rosa v. De Borja, 53 Phil., 990; Abuton v. Paler, 54 Phil., 519; Marquez Lim Cay v. Del Rosario, 55 Phil., 692; Central Azucarera de Tarlac v. De Leon, 56 Phil., 169; Navarro v. Aguila, 66 Phil., 604).

Needless to say, in case of inconsistency, the provisions of said Act No. 3688 must be deemed repealed by those of Commonwealth Act No. 103, insofar as the settlement of "all questions, matters, controversies or disputes arising between and or affecting employers and employees or laborers . . . ." (Sec. 1, C. A. No. 103). It may not be amiss to note, also, that Case No. 529-V was instituted in March 1950, or long before the approval of the Industrial Peace Act, on June 17, 1953, pursuant to which all cases then pending before the Court of Industrial Relations — such as said Case No. 529-V — "shall be processed by the Court according to Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred three, as amended . . . ." (R. A. No. 875 Sec. 27).

3. The provisions of Act No. 3688, to the effect that actions upon said bonds must be brought, either by the Government or by those who supplied labor or materials, suing in the name of the Government, merely affect the cause of action, not the jurisdiction to hear the case and render therein a valid decision. A decision rendered in favor of laborers who failed to comply with such provisions would, at best, be erroneous, therefore, but, once final, it would conclusively establish their right to the remedy granted in said decision. In the language of former Chief Justice Moran:ClubJuris

". . .’jurisdiction’ should be distinguished from ‘exercise of jurisdiction’. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause — the right to act in a case. Since it is the power to hear and determine, its existence does not depend either upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the decision made. The authority to decide a cause, if at all, and not the decision rendered therein, is what makes up jurisdiction. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject-matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case, is but an exercise of that jurisdiction.

"The errors which the court may commit in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Here, it becomes necessary to distinguish errors of jurisdiction from errors of judgment. The first may be reviewed in a certiorari proceeding; the second, by appeal. Errors of jurisdiction render an order or judgment void or voidable. But errors of judgment or of procedure are not necessarily a ground for reversal. They shall have such effect only if it be shown that prejudice has been caused by them. . . . ." (Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 2, 1957 ed., pp. 156-157.)

4. The question of the amount or extent of the liability of the surety in favor of the laborers, under the performance bonds given by the former, affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision in said Case No. 529-V, not the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations to render said decision or its validity, and, consequently, is beyond the province of this special civil action for certiorari.

5. Similarly, the alleged right of the Government to collect from the surety, in preference to the claim of the laborers for unpaid wages and separation pay, does not impair or affect the validity of the said decision in favor of the laborers and against the surety, or give the latter a cause of action to question, upon such ground, the legality of the alias writ for the execution of the decision aforementioned.

6. The case of Cristitu Bautista, Et. Al. v. Auditor General (supra), is not controlling in the case at bar. To begin with, it does not appear that the laborers involved in the latter case and in said Case No. 529-V were parties in the Bautista case. Neither was the surety a party therein. Secondly, the issue in the Bautista case is different from the one raised in the present case and in Case No. 529-V. The Bautista case involved a claim against the Government. The issue therein was whether the latter (not the surety, which was not a party therein) was liable for the unpaid wages of a number of persons who furnished labor in the construction of the Bugallon Bridge. The right of these persons to sue and demand payment from the surety was not in issue in said case. In short, neither the parties, nor the cause of action in the two (2) sets of cases, are identical (San Diego v. Cardona, 70 Phil., 281; Ocampo v. Jenkins, 14 Phil., 681; Donato v. Mendoza, 25 Phil., 57; Isaac v. Padilla, 31 Phil., 469; Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Director of Lands, 35 Phil., 339; Aquino v. Director of Lands, 39 Phil., 850; De Santos v. Bank of P. I., 58 Phil., 784; De Leon Vda. de Lontok v. Padua, 75 Phil., 548; Sandejas v. Robles, 81 Phil., 421).

Before this case was submitted for decision on the merits, but after the filing of its answer to the petition of the surety, respondent Court of Industrial Relations filed a "motion to dismiss appeal", upon the theory that this is a petition for review by certiorari, under Rule 58, section 4, of the Rules of Court and that the surety had failed to take the steps therein required within the reglementary period. By resolution of this Court, we deferred action upon said motion "until the date when this case is considered upon the merits." Said "motion to dismiss appeal" is hereby denied, it being apparent from the allegations of the petition herein, and the amendments thereof, that the surety is seeking relief under Rule 67 of said Rules of Court, and that the movant and the other respondents herein have so understood said petition.

Wherefore, the petition of the Philippine Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. is dismissed, and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued hereby dissolved, with costs against said petitioner. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez David, J., concurs in the result.




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