Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13662 May 30, 1960 - CEFERINO ESTEBAN v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

108 Phil 374:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-13662. May 30, 1960.]

CEFERINO ESTEBAN, GERONIMO CASTRO, ANDREA G. GALINDEZ, MARIA B. RONQUILLO, ISABEL ALEJO, ANACLETO MARANAN, FELIPE GARCIA, ELEONOR P. VELAYO, HERMOGENES G. DOMINGO, ALICIA GUZMAN, RITA EVANGELISTA, MARTA BAYAN, PABLO NICOLAS, AMBROSIO TIONGSON, FEDERICO AGUSTIN, CELESTINA DE GUZMAN, VICENTE MENDOZA, ROSALINDA SANTIAGO, MARIA MARANAN, and OTHERS, plaintiffs and appellants, v. CITY OF CABANATUAN, defendant and appellee.

Banzon, Villaruel & Manansala Law Offices for Appellants.

City Atty. Leon L. Aquino for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; EXERCISE OF PROPRIETARY FUNCTIONS, CHARGING OF FEES FOR LEASE OF PUBLIC MARKETS. — When a municipal corporation fixes the fees for the use of its properties, such as public markets, it does not assert governmental authority, or wield the police power or the power of taxation. It exercises merely a proprietary function, and, like any private owner, it is, in the absence of any constitutional or statutory limitation, free to charge such sums as it may deem best, regardless of the reasonableness of the amount fixed, for the prospective lessees are free to enter into the corresponding contract of lease, if they are agreeable to its terms, or, otherwise, not to enter into such contract.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


In the pleading with which this case was initiated, entitled "Petition for declaratory judgment, injunction, etc.," the nineteen (19) plaintiffs who are holders of stalls or "plats" in the market site of the City of Cabanatuan, claiming to act on their behalf and that of other stallholders belonging to their class, prayed the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to "enjoin the City of Cabanatuan and all its high officials from enforcing, or acting on, . . . Ordinance No. 12, series of 1956, pending this law suit" ; to allow "the plaintiffs to continue paying the defendant their rentals at the old or usual rates" ; to "declare said ordinance null and void for being ultra vires and unconstitutional" ; to "apply all their payments made in April and May or June to the several months they may equitably apply to the old rates" ; and to grant "such other reliefs the Court may deem fair and reasonable as a court of equity." clubjuris

Soon after the filing of said petition, the lower court issued the writ of preliminary injunction therein prayed for, upon the filing of a P1,000.00 bond.

Subsequently, four (4) other holders of stalls or "lots," in said public market, namely, Juanita Rabosa, Eustaquia de la Cruz, Eugenia Aguirre and Gloria GARCIA, were allowed to intervene and join the original petitioners. In due course, judgment was rendered, thereafter, dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, as well as the complaint in intervention, with costs, and dissolving said writ of preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, however, certified the case to Us, inasmuch as the validity of a city ordinance is in issue therein.

The main facts are set forth in the decision appealed from, from which we quote:ClubJuris

"The City of Cabanatuan is the owner of a block located in the heart of the City used as a market site. It is bounded by Paco Roman, Melencio, and Sanciangco Streets and Burgos Avenue. This is leased to stallholders by the City. A sketch plan, Exhibit A, indicates the division of the market site. Plaintiffs are stallholders on Melencio and Sanciangco streets and their names are indicated in the sketch, Exhibit A. Stalls without names indicate that the holders thereof are not questioning the validity of reasonableness of Ordinance No. 12.

"For several years prior to the approval of Ordinance No. 12 by the Municipal Board of the City of Cabanatuan on March 21, 1956, plaintiffs had been occupying, as lessees, stalls on Melencio and Sanciangco streets as indicated in the plan, Exhibit A. It does not clearly appear whether they have written contracts of lease with the City of Cabanatuan. Be that as it may, it has not been shown that if they have such contracts, the period had not expired. Since the rental under Ordinance No. 48, series of 1945 and Ordinance No. 22, series of 1949 was paid by the month, it must be deemed that the lease contract was from month to month. Under Ordinance 48, series of 1945, the plaintiffs paid P.20 per square meter per month on the lots occupied by them. This was raised to P.30 a month by Ordinance No. 22, series of 1949; On March 21, 1956, the Municipal Board of Cabanatuan City passed and approved Ordinance No. 12, series of 1956, raising the rentals on Burgos Avenue and Paco Roman Street from P.035 and P.034, respectively, per square meter to P.05 per square meter a day, and lots on Melencio and Sanciangco Streets to P.03 and P.04 per square meter beginning June 1, 1956 to July 31, 1956 and after July 31, 1956 to P.05 per square meter per day. The validity of this ordinance is challenged by the plaintiffs as unreasonable and confiscatory and, therefore, null and void." clubjuris

At the outset, we note that plaintiffs contest the legality of the ordinance in question upon the ground that the rates therein fixed are unreasonable. This claim is, in turn, predicated upon the theory that a municipal ordinance, to be valid, "must relate to a subject within the scope of the corporation; it must be in harmony with the constitution, the laws and treaties of the state, the municipal charter and the general principles of common law and equity, . . . it must be reasonable in its terms; and it must be enacted in good faith, in the public interest alone." (Appellants’ brief, p. 10.) The foregoing statement must be qualified. It is, more or less, an expression of the rule governing the validity of municipal ordinance enacted in the exercise of the police power, under which most, but not all, ordinances as well as laws, fall. Hence, the amount of license fees, whether imposed by the national government or by local governments must be reasonable.

Certain exactions, imposable under an authority other than police power, are not subject, however, to qualification as to the amount chargeable, unless the Constitution or the pertinent laws provide otherwise. For instance, the rates of taxes, whether national or municipal, need not be reasonable, in the absence of such constitutional or statutory limitation. Similarly, when a municipal corporation fixes the fees for the use of its properties, such as public markets, it does not wield the police power, or even the power of taxation. Neither does it assert governmental authority. It exercises merely a proprietary function. And, like any private owner, it is - in the absence of the aforementioned limitation, which does not exist in the Charter of Cabanatuan City (Republic Act No. 526) — free to charge such sums as it may deem best, regardless of the reasonableness of the amount fixed, for the prospective lessees are free to enter into the corresponding contract of lease, if they are agreeable to the terms thereof, or, otherwise, not enter into such contract.

Needless to say, the authorities relied upon by the plaintiffs are not in point. The Association of Customs Brokers, Inc. & G. Manlapit Inc. v. Municipal Board of Manila, 93 Phil., 107; 49 Off. Gaz. (5) 1803 and Philippine Motors Association v. City Assessor of Manila, G.R. No. L-4442 (May 22, 1953), referred to an ordinance taxing motor vehicles operating within the City of Manila, which was declared unconstitutional because it was not a property tax and it violated the Motor Vehicles Law (Act No. 3992), apart from being discriminatory. The case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins (118 U. S. 356) involved an ordinance, enacted in the exercise of the police power, regulating the operation of laundries. In short, the reasonableness of the amount charged for the use of patrimonial property was not vital to the validity of the ordinances in issue in said cases.

In any event, sections 1, 2 and 3 of the ordinance in question provide:ClubJuris

"SECTION 1. RENTALS OF MARKET LOTS. — Unless otherwise changed by the Municipal Board, the City Treasurer shall collect the following rents on the following market lots:clubjuris

‘(a) Lessees of lots fronting Burgos Avenue and Paco Roman Street who are now paying P0.035 and P0.034 respectively per square meter a day shall pay P0.05 per square meter a day;

‘(b) Lessees of lots fronting Paco Roman, Melencio and Sanciangco Street who are now paying P0.01 per square meter a day shall pay P0.03 per square meter a day. This rate of P0.03 shall be P0.04 beginning June 1, 1956 up to July 31, 1956 and P0.05 thereafter.’

"SECTION 2. RENTALS OF OTHER CITY LOTS. — Unless otherwise changed by the Municipal Board, the City Treasurer shall collect the following rentals on the following City Lots which are not market lots:clubjuris

‘(a) Lessees of lots fronting Burgos Avenue who are now paying P0.01 per square meter a day shall pay P0.03 per square meter a day;

‘(b) Lessees of lots fronting Melencio Street who are now paying P0.01 per square meter a day shall pay P0.03 per square meter a day; and

‘(c) Lessees of lots fronting Rizal Street who are now paying P0.05 per square meter a month shall pay P0.02 per square meter a day.’ (Ordinance No. 12, supra, Rec. on Appeal, pp. 7-8.)

"SECTION 3. — POLICY OF GOVERNMENT. — Henceforth, no person or persons shall be permitted, directly or indirectly, to lease any lot or lots within the public market with an area exceeding twenty-four (24) square meters, that is, 4 m. x 6 m. All lessees of market lots or spaces now paying or who will pay P0.05 per square meter a day under the provisions of Section 1 hereof shall pay P0.10 a day beginning January 1, 1957 for every square meter they are now occupying and may occupy in excess of twenty-four (24) square meters. (Ordinance No. 12, supra, Rec. on Appeal, p. 8.)"

Referring to the question whether the rentals thus fixed are unreasonable and discriminatory or not, the lower court lucidly stated:ClubJuris

". . . The main argument of plaintiffs is that the raising of fees from P0.01 per square meter per day to P0.03 daily, and thereafter to P0.04 beginning June 1, 1956, and then P0.05 beginning July 1, 1956, is unreasonable, abusive, prohibitive and unwarranted. At first blush, the raise being sudden and abrupt, it would seem that plaintiffs’ contention is tenable. But a comparison with the rentals paid by other stallholders in the same market site reveals that the City of Cabanatuan is only charging stallholders on Melencio and Sanciangco Streets the same rates which are charged to other stallholders in the same market site, and which these stallholders had been paying prior to the approval of Ordinance No. 12 on March 21, 1956. As early as 1945 stallholders on Paco Roman Street were paying P.035 per square meter per day and those on Burgos Avenue were paying P0.034 per square meter. This was the rate they were paying up to the approval of Ordinance No. 12. All the while, from 1945 to April 1, 1956, stallholders on Sanciangco and Melencio Streets were enjoying a rare privilege in that they were paying only 2/3 of a centavo per square meter per day from 1945 to 1949, and P.01 per square meter from 1949 up to the approval of Ordinance Nos. 12 on March 21, 1956. And it is to be noted that Melencio and Sanciangco Streets appear to be the busier section because these streets are bus terminals. The reason for this rate privilege enjoyed by the stallholders on Melencio and Sanciangco Streets was that prior to the election of November, 1955, there were two members of the Municipal Board of Cabanatuan City who were stallholders on Melencio and Sanciangco Streets. While it does not appear from the evidence that those two members of the board had obstructed the increase in rentals, the records do show that notwithstanding the recommendation of the City Treasurer to the Municipal Board in 1952, to raise the rentals on Paco Roman and Sanciangco Streets to P.05 per square meter a day, the recommendation remained unacted. After the election of 1955, those two members of the Municipal Board ceased to be members of the Municipal Board. Again, the City Treasurer recommended to the Municipal Board that the rentals on the market site be raised, Exhibit 1. Acting upon this recommendation of the City Treasure, Ordinance No. 12 series of 1956, raising the rentals, was approved by the Municipal Board.

"For over about 10 years, the stallholders on Burgos Avenue and Paco Roman street were paying P0.034 and P0.035 per square meter a day. This must be conclusively presumed justified and reasonable for there had been no protest and no question as to their reasonableness had been raised by the stallholders on these streets. It stands to reason that the same rate would be reasonable on Melencio and Sanciangco Streets, more so, because these two streets appear to be busier streets. With the passing years it may be presumed that land values went up and population increased. The increase of rentals from P.035 per square meter to P.05 cannot be said unreasonable nor oppressive. And the best evidence that it is not so is that none of the stallholders on Burgos Avenue had questioned the reasonableness of the ordinance, and of all the stallholders of Paco Roman Street, only one raised the question. Inside the market site, the lowest fee is P.05 per square meter a day, the highest being P0.10. These rates, notwithstanding, it appears that business continue to flourish inside the market and on Paco Roman Street and Burgos Avenue. And notwithstanding the approval of Ordinance No. 12, there are many applicants for the lease of stalls on Melencio and Sanciangco Streets. If the fees charged by the City of Cabanatuan were out of proportion to the flow of business, as to leave no reasonable profits, operators of stalls inside the market site and on Paco Roman Street and Burgos Avenue would have abandoned their business and stalls long before the approval of Ordinance No. 12. The fact is that all these stallholders on Paco Roman and Burgos Avenue and those inside the market site have continued to pay the fees charged by the City of Cabanatuan without any protest. Stallholders on Sanciangco and Melencio Streets must have realized bigger profits considering the privilege they enjoyed. It is the loss of a part of this profit that led the plaintiffs to question the validity and reasonableness of the ordinance. If anyone had a right to protest, it is those stallholders inside the market and on Paco Roman Street and Burgos Avenue who had been discriminated upon prior to the approval of Ordinance No. 12. Ordinance No. 12 does nothing more than to equalize the fees imposed upon stallholders and to correct an injustice which had been existing for over ten years. The privilege they have been enjoying for over 10 years was merely taken away by the Municipal Board." clubjuris

Upon a review of the record, we find ourselves fully in agreement with the foregoing views of His Honor, the Trial Judge.

It is urged, however, that:ClubJuris

"The lower court erred in barring the presentation of testimonial evidence tending to show the keen competition being met by appellants’ business from the business of stallholders inside the market and that of the storekeepers or business establishments along the opposite side of the streets, for which reason appellants’ business is slack and poor, a condition that will ultimately drive them away from pursuing their only means of livelihood if and when the provisions of the ordinance are applied to them." clubjuris

There is no merit in this pretense. The bigger number of stores and other business enterprises being allegedly established and operated along the side of the streets opposite to that in which appellants’ stalls, plats or lots are situated, would merely indicate the growing importance of, and volume of the traffic in said streets, and justify the increase in the rentals complained of.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants. It is so ordered.

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