Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-14069 & L-14149 May 30, 1960 - UY HA v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

108 Phil 400:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. L-14069 & L-14149. May 30, 1960.]

UY HA, petitioner and appellant, v. THE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA, ET AL., Respondent. THE CITY OF MANILA, intervenor and Appellant.

Ricardo D. Conjares, Cecilio B. Magadia, Jr. and Remigio T. Octavio for petitioner and Appellant.

City Fiscal Hermógenes Concepción, Jr. for intervenor and appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; PINBALL MACHINES GAMBLING DEVICES; PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE 195 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. — "Pinball machines", in the different forms in which they are operated, are gambling devices in that the winning therein depends wholly upon chance or hazard. They are inimical to the general welfare because they tend to corrupt the people, especially youngsters and schoolchildren, robbing them of their money and of their savings earned by the sweat of their brow. Their operation should therefore be suppressed not only because they are prohibited by law but because they are injuries to public welfare. Being gambling devices or contrivances the operation of which depends upon chance, they are not only prohibited but are penalized by Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code.

2. ID.; ID.; MANILA CITY ORDINANCE NO. 3941 VALID; SUPPRESSION OF PINBALL MACHINES PROPER UNDER THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. — "Pinball machines", being especially designed for gambling and as such prohibited by law, had been properly suppressed when the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 3941 providing therein that no license for their installation or operation shall be granted under any circumstances. In this sense said ordinance cannot be held to be invalid or unconstitutional; on the contrary, it properly comes under the general welfare clause of the Charter of the City of Manila.

3. ID.; ID.; POWER OF CITY OF MANILA TO REGULATE AND FIX LICENSE FEES FOR OPERATION OF SLOT MACHINE; PINBALL MACHINE; PINBALL MACHINE NOT INCLUDED. — While it is true that under Section 18 (1) of Act 409, known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, the municipal board is given the power to regulate and fix the amount of license fees for the operation of certain devices, among them, slot machines, this provision should be understood as referring merely to those types of slot machines that are not per se gambling devices, for what is prohibited by law cannot be the subject of regulation. In this sense, Ordinance No. 3941 is valid and proper, for it only seeks to regulate, as it does, the installation and operation of any mechanical contrivance not otherwise prohibited by law. But "pinball machines" are not included in this proviso.

4. ID.; ID.; MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE NO. 3628 OF MANILA ULTRA VIRES. — Ordinance No. 3628 of the City of Manila, which seeks to regulate and license the operation of "pinball machines" within the city upon payment of an annual license of P800.00 for each "pinball machine", is ultra vires, being an exercise of power not granted by law to the City of Manila since those devices are prohibited by law and as such are not subject to regulation.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


On December 24, 1957, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 3941, which was approved by the mayor on January 3, 1958, providing, among others, that "no license for the installation and/or operation of machines and apparatus commonly known as ‘Pinball’ machines shall be granted under any circumstances." Thereafter, the mayor ordered the confiscation of all "pinball machines" which are being used in violation of said ordinance within the city. Petitioner, who was engaged in the business of operating "pinball machines" within the city prior to the approval of said ordinance, applied for license for the current year, but was refused, whereupon he filed the present petition before the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking to enjoin the enforcement of said ordinance on the ground that said "pinball machines" are devised for amusement and not for gambling and so said ordinance is invalid and unconstitutional.

On February 20, 1958, respondents filed their answer stating that the "pinball machines" operated by petitioner are specially designed for gambling and as such their operation is prohibited by law; that said ordinance is not discriminatory; that "pinball machines" being designed for gambling, the operation of which chiefly depending on chance, are a constant temptation to young people in whom gambling may easily become deep-rooted; and that "pinball machines" are deleterious to the moral, economic and physical well-being of the people who indulge in them, especially youngsters and schoolchildren, so that their operation may be prohibited under Section 18 (kk) of Republic Act No. 409.

The City of Manila, which has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, was allowed to intervene, and in its complaint it alleged that petitioner had been engaged in the business of operating eight "pinball machines" in the City of Manila from the first quarter of 1956 up to the present without first paying the annual license fee of P300.00 for each machine in accordance with the provisions of Section 774 of the Revised Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance No. 3628, thereby becoming indebted to the intervenor in the total sum of P4,620.00, including the surcharge of 10% for non-payment. Petitioner answered this complaint stating that he had already paid the corresponding fees for his eight "pinball machines" for 1956 and the first half of 1957 and that tender of payment for the second half of 1957 was refused by the intervenor. He also claims that Ordinance No. 3628 is null and void as it is not merely regulatory but a revenue measure which is beyond the power of the City of Manila to enact.

After trial, the court rendered decision holding that "pinball machines" are gambling devices and as such are proper subjects of the general welfare clause of the city and that pinball machine joints cannot be considered places of amusements within the purview of Republic Act 1224. However, it denied the claim of intervenor for unpaid license fees on the ground that "it is doubtful whether the increase of annual license fee from P50.00 to P300.00 can be justified under its police power, or under Section 18(1) of its Charter, neither of which authorizes the imposition of a tax measure." clubjuris

Both petitioner and intervenor have appealed.

The issues posed by petitioner are: (1) Are "pinball machines" gambling devices the operation of which is prohibited by law?; and (2) Is Ordinance No. 3941 of the City of Manila valid and constitutional?

With regard to the first issue, we quote with approval the following observation of the trial court:ClubJuris

"Pinball machines generally consists of a playing surface, containing obstacles and apertures, upon which balls or marbles, obtained by inserting the required coin in the slot, are propelled by various methods but uniformly with the object of dropping such balls or marbles into particular apertures designated as scoring or ‘pay- off’ holes (39 CJS 66). Dets. Cezar Zaballa and Numeriano Cortez upon order of the Chief of the Detective Bureau conducted a three-day observation on the operation of the one-ball pinball machine and found that the chance of winning of a skilled player is 4.5% while that of a non-skilled player is only 3.34% (Exhibit 6, pp. 1-4). They further observed that the persons patronizing these joints are school children carrying books and idle adults.

"The foregoing observation made with respect to the non-flipper or one-ball type which are invariably played for money is not radically different from the conditions obtaining in the flipper or 5- ball type which were the object of ocular inspection. During the ocular inspection, the Fiscal spent P0.60 without winning a replay, while the presiding Judge spent P1.00 with only one replay. In other words, for three games, P1.00 was lost. The result depends mainly on chance or luck. The criterion is based not on the skilled player but on the general public patronizing same. In the flipper type, the prize is a chance at replay and the chances are enhanced in proportion to the amount paid per game. Then, too, the replays one wins may be easily converted into cash by the operator.

"Pinball machines have generally been held gambling devices (Howle v. City of Birmingham, 159 So. 206, 229 Ala. 666; Stead v. State, 72 S.W. 2nd 542, 189 Ark. 389; State v. Wiley, 3 N.W. 2nd 620; State v. Livingston, 196 A. 407; Hunter v. Mayor & Council of Teneck Tp., 24 A. 2nd 553, 128 N.J. Law 164; People v. Swartz, 25 N.E. 2nd 386, 282 N.Y. 596, and State v. Coats, 74 P. 2nd 1102, 158 Or. 122.) In the case of State ex rel. Dussault, Co. Atty., et al v. Kilburn, 135 ALR 99, it has been held that "Under statute penalizing as a misdemeanor operation of any game of chance played with any device of money, checks, credit or any representatives of value, a pin-ball machine in the operation of which a certain amount of skill could be developed, but which as played by patronizing public was purely a game of chance, and which paid off in trade checks if metal ball shot from spring or mechanical device fell into proper hole designated by lighted number on back of machine which changed each time machine was played, was a "gambling device" and building in which it was used was properly enjoined as a "nuisance." And in State ex rel. Green v. One 5� Fifth Inning Base Ball Machines, 3 So. 2nd 27, 28, it has been held that ‘A device which was termed a "fifth inning baseball machine" and was operated by placing nickel in slot, which released certain balls and by ejecting balls on board by pulling a plunger and striking against the balls, which would then strike projections or bumpers on the board, a higher score resulting by striking a certain number than by striking others, was a "game of chance" subject to condemnation as a "gambling device" under codal provisions relating to suppression of gambling devices.’ The proper test as to whether a machine is a gambling device is whether it encourages the gambling instinct (Dussault Case, Supra). Furthermore, ‘a machine which return merchandise of the value of the coin played therein and, in addition, a chance of receiving a varying amount of checks which may be used to pay the machine for amusement only is a gambling device the right to continue the operation of the machine for amusement being a thing of value within statutes directed against gaming (State v. Baitler, 131 Me 285, 161 A 671, citing RCL; Myers v. Cincinnati, 128 Ohio St. 235, 190 NE 569, citing RCL; Colbert Superior Confection Co. 154 Okla. 28, 6 P (2d) 791; Harvie v. Heise, 150 SC 277, 148 SE 66 (appeal dismissed in 279 U.S. 824, 73 L ed 977, 49 S Ct 478) citing RCL; Painter v. State, 163 Tenn. 627, 45 SW (2nd) 46, 81 ALR 173.)

"Under the foregoing authorities, petitioner’s non-flipper machines are clearly gambling devices; while the flipper type should likewise be considered as gambling devices due to their tendency to encourage the gambling instinct, which lead to idleness, economic waste, dislike for work and criminality especially among children of school age who are attracted by the lure and novelty of the machine. They are, therefore proper subjects and object of the general welfare clause of the City of Manila. It further results that pinball machines joints cannot be considered ‘places of amusements’ within the purview of Republic Act 1224 as to affect the question at issue." clubjuris

We fully agree with the trial court that "pinball machines" in the different forms in which they are operated are gambling devices in that the winning therein depends wholly upon chance or hazard. They are inimical to the general welfare because they tend to corrupt the people especially youngsters and schoolchildren robbing them of their money and of their savings earned by the sweat of their brow. Their operation should therefore be suppressed not only because they are prohibited by law but because they are injurious to public welfare. Being gambling devices or contrivances the operation of which depends upon chance, they are not only prohibited but are penalized by Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code.

"Pinball machines" being specially designed for gambling and as such prohibited by law had been properly suppressed when the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 3941 providing therein that no license for their installation or operation shall be granted under any circumstances. In this sense, said ordinance cannot be held to be invalid or unconstitutional; on the contrary, it properly comes under the general welfare clause of the Charter of the City of Manila.

It is true that under Section 18(1) of Act 409, known as Revised Charter of the City of Manila, the municipal board is given the power to regulate and fix the amount of license fees for the operation of certain devices, among them, slot machines, but this provision should be understood as referring merely to those types of slot machines that are not per se gambling devices, for what is prohibited by law cannot be the subject of regulation. In this sense, Ordinance No. 3941 is valid and proper, for it only seeks to regulate, as it does, the installation and operation of any mechanical contrivance not otherwise prohibited by law. But "pinball machines" are not included in this proviso. They have been properly suppressed.

"A slot machine is not per se a gambling device, since it may be used and played upon for innocent purposes, and courts cannot, therefore, take judicial notice that every slot machine is a gambling device because use to which it is put must determine its character." (Heartley v. State, 178 S.W. 2nd L. 178 Teen. 354)

"‘Slot machine’ is not per se a gambling device, but is only such where it delivers some commodity in varying quantity, or where player may receive, depending on chance, something of value or token of some kind redeemable for something of value, or where there is some other element that appeals to the gambling instinct. Ex parte Overby, 279 P. 523, 524, 43 Okl. Cr. 400." (39 Words and Phrases, p. 519)

Since Ordinance No. 3628 seeks to regulate and license the operation of "pinball machines" within the City of Manila upon payment of an annual license of P300.00 for each "pinball machines", the same is ultra vires, it being an exercise of power not granted by law to the intervenor. As already stated, those devices are prohibited by law and as such are not subject to regulation. The attempt, therefore, on the part of the intervenor to collect the sum of P4,620.00 as unpaid license fees under said ordinance cannot be entertained.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with out pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepción, 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