Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14280 May 30, 1960 - JUAN YSMAEL & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

108 Phil 407:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-14280. May 30, 1960.]

JUAN YSMAEL & COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, THE HONORABLE JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ, BALTAZAR M. VILLANUEVA, and EMILIANO C. TABIGNE, JUDGES OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, and YSMAEL STEEL SALESMEN’S UNION, Respondents.

Roxas & Sarmiento for Petitioner.

Pascual Y. Reyes for respondent CIR.

Luis B. Mauricio for respondent Union.

Cipriano Cid as Amicus Curiae.


SYLLABUS


LABOR LAWS; CERTIFICATION AS EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE; COMMISSION AGENTS AND SALES REPRESENTATIVES IN CASE AT BAR DEEMED EMPLOYEES. — The members of the petitioning Union are commission agents or sales representatives, whose form of selection and engagement is different from that of the employees of the company, for unlike the latter, the commission agents are not required to undergo physical examination, to submit a police clearance, and are not provided with identification cards. They are paid neither wages nor salaries, but are granted commissions, the amount of which depends on their sales. Held: The aforementioned manner of selection and engagement does not prove absence of employer-employee relationship. Most business enterprises have employees of different classes, necessarily requiring different methods of selection and contracts of services of various types, without detracting from the existence of said relationship. On the other hand, the facts on record show that the members of the petitioning Union are employees of the company within the purview of the terms "employer" and "employee" as defined in the Industrial Peace Act. Hence, the Union can be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the salesman of the company.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


An appeal, taken by Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc., hereafter referred to as the Company, from an order of the Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations, which was affirmed by the Court sitting in banc, certifying the Ysmael Steel Salesmen’s Union, hereafter referred to as the petitioning Union, as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the salesmen of the Company, with all the rights and obligations imposed by law.

On November 27, 1957, the petitioning Union, a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor, filed a petition praying for the aforesaid certification, upon the ground that it is a labor organization composed of all the salesmen working for the Ysmael Steel Manufacturing Co., which is operated by the Company, as a subsidiary thereof, both of which are employers of the aforementioned salesmen; that there are in the Company two (2) other labor unions, namely, the Ysmael Steel Labor Organization (PAFLU), the membership of which is composed mainly of manual factory workers (non- supervisors), and the Ysmael Steel Employees Union, the membership of which is composed of supervisors, non-supervisors who are technical employees, office non-technical employees and clerical factory workers, and that the members of petitioning Union are not included in or represented by any of said two (2) unions in their collective bargaining agreement with the Company, for the economic factors affecting the members of petitioning Union are different and they constitute a separate and distinct union for an appropriate bargaining unit. The Company filed an answer objecting to the petition upon several grounds, which were, in effect, overruled by the Court in the order appealed from.

The Company assails the same as null and void for alleged want of a clear and distinct statement of the law and facts on which it is based, in violation, it is claimed, of Article VIII, Section 12, of the Constitution. The pertinent part of the order appealed from reads as follows:ClubJuris

"At the hearing of this case on February 11, March 12, 26 and May 5, 1958, the following facts appear to have been established in evidence: That the petitioning Union is duly registered by the Department of Labor and is, therefore, a legitimate labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act; that the Company is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of steel equipment, machines, etc., owned and operated by the Juan Ysmael & Company, Inc.; that at the time of the instant petition for certification was filed, there were twenty (20) salesmen or commission agents working for the Company, but that as of March 26, 1958, only fourteen (14) of them were left; and that neither of the two unions existing in the Company, namely the Ysmael Steel Labor Organization (PAFLU) and the Ysmael Steel Employees’ Union, represents the members of the petitioning Union in any of their respective collective bargaining agreement with the Company.

"Furthermore, after a careful examination of the records, particularly the respective memoranda filed by both of the petitioning Union and the Company, and after a mature consideration of all the proofs submitted in evidence in this case by both parties, the Court believes and so holds that there exists an employer-employee relationship between the members of the petitioning Union and the Company; that all the salesmen working with the Company may constitute a distinct and separate appropriate unit for bargaining purposes with the Company; and that the members of the petitioning Union constitute the majority of the salesmen working for the Company. The certification of the petitioning Union, therefore, as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the salesmen working with the Company is in order." clubjuris

The foregoing findings constitute a substantial compliance with the constitutional mandate invoked by the Company. In any event, this Court held in Talabon v. Provincial Warden (78 Phil., 599; 44 Off. Gaz. 4326) that failure to comply with said requirement of our fundamental law does not nullify or affect the validity of the decision or order in question.

The main issue is whether the members of petitioning Union are employees of the Company, for purposes of certification of the former as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the salesmen of the latter. The Company maintains the negative upon the ground that the members of petitioning Union are mere commission agents or sales representatives, whose form of selection and engagement is different from that of the employees of the Company, for unlike such employees, commission agents are not required to undergo physical examination, to submit a police clearance, and to punch the bundy clock, and are not provided with identification cards. It is further urged that commission agents are paid neither wages nor salaries, but are granted commissions, the amount of which depends on their sales, and that their conduct as agents is not subject to the control or supervision of the Company, which, moreover, has no power of dismissal over them.

The aforementioned difference in the manner of "selection and engagement" does not prove, however, the alleged absence of employer- employee relationship. Most business enterprises have employees of different classes, necessarily requiring different methods of selection and contracts of services of various types, without detracting from the existence of said relationship. Besides, the very evidence for the Company shows that commission agents are dispensed from physical examination and from punching the bundy clock because their duties are extraneous to the factory work and they have no fixed hours to contact their customers.

Again, the records disclose the following facts, among others:clubjuris

1. One who wishes to be a commission agent must file an application therefor. Then he is given a two-month probationary period, within which technical men of the Company train him. On the basis of his performance during said period, the Company, thereafter, decides whether or not he will be taken as a regular commission agent.

2. His duties as such include the following: (a) One hundred per centum (100%) "loyalty to the Company", and "disloyalty of any form or free-lancing for any other company during their tour of duty, will be sufficient cause for cutting allowances and withdrawal of the authority to sell for the Company." (b) He must check in at 8:00 a.m., to "report daily all visits made", and "any misrepresentation with regard to coverage will be sufficient cause for cutting allowances." He was, also, required, before, to check in at 4:00 p.m., but, subsequently, this requirement was eliminated. (c) He "must list in his daily report all items offered to customers, plus results." (d) He "has to visit his accounts at least twice every month", and "if he fails to visit an account within two (2) months, he shall automatically lose any claim to his account." clubjuris

3. The Company directs the details of the work of making sales, through a sales manager, under whose authority commission agents are.

4. As the agents or salesmen report for work each morning, they are given transportation allowances of P1.50 or P2.00 each. They have, also, a drawing allowance, the amount of which varies depending upon past performances, deductible from future commissions.

5. The Company exercises the power of dismissal: (a) by cutting off these allowances, when the agent makes a misrepresentation with regards to coverage or report on daily visits made, or is guilty of disloyalty in any form or free-lancing for any other company during his tour of duty; (b) by withdrawing the authority to sell in case of such disloyalty or free-lancing, or when an agent fails to make any reasonably good sale within a reasonable period; and (c) by forcing him to resign for any compelling reason, as the company has done in the case of commission agents Jose S. Esquivias, Melecio Data and Felicidad Sinope.

6. The company has adopted the foregoing norms unilaterally — generally by the promulgation of pertinent rules — without the intervention or consent of the agents, and without any objection on their part. Both parties have thereby indicated that the Company has full authority to determine the manner and conditions under which the agents shall perform their duties. In other words, the Company has control over the conduct of its salesmen or agents. Thus, absence of any duty on their part to keep regular office hours, submit a police clearance and punch the bundy clock, and of other additional duties, is due, not to lack of power or authority to impose the same, but merely to a policy of the management which deems it, for the time being, either unnecessary or inexpedient or both, owing to the peculiar nature of the task of commission agents.

7. All sales of products of Ysmael Steel Manufacturing Company are seemingly effected through the aforementioned salesmen or commission agents. There are no other persons, apart from the sales manager and sales supervisor of the Company, charged with the duty to sell therefor said products.

8. The salesmen or agents in question are, according to the assistant general manager of the Company, registered as members of the Social Security System, established by Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by Republic Act No. 1792, sections 9 and 8(d) of which read:clubjuris

x       x       x


"SEC. 9. — Compulsory coverage. — Coverage in the System shall be compulsory upon all employees between the ages of sixteen and sixty years, inclusive, if they have been for at least six months in the service of an employer who is a member of the System . . . ." clubjuris

"SEC. 8. — Terms defined. — For the purposes of this Act, the following shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the following meanings:ClubJuris

"(d) Employee. — Any person who performs services for an ‘employer’ in which either or both mental and physical efforts are used and who receives compensation for such services." clubjuris

Pursuant to section 2, paragraphs (c) and (d), of Republic Act No. 875:ClubJuris

"An employer includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include any labor organization (otherwise than when acting as an employer) or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization." (Sec. 2[c], Rep. Act No. 875.)

"The term ‘employee’ shall include any employee and shall not be limited to the employee of a particular employer unless the Act explicitly states otherwise and shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice and who has not obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular employment." (Sec. 2[d], id.)

In the light of the foregoing, it is our considered opinion that the lower court did not err in holding that the members of petitioning union are employees of the Company — within the purview of the terms "employer" and "employee" as defined in the Industrial Peace Act — for purposes of certification of said union as the bargaining representative of its salesmen or commission agents.

It is next argued by the Company that said members of petitioning Union do not constitute a majority of its salesmen or commission agents. This pretense is, however, contrary to the above quoted findings of fact of the lower court, which, admittedly, are borne out by Exhibit C, a list of the salesmen or agents affiliated to petitioning Union. Hence, said findings may not be disturbed in this proceeding for review by certiorari. (Rule 44, Sec. 2, Rules of Court; Sec. 14, Com. Act No. 103, Philippine Refining Co. Workers’ Union v. Philippine Refining Co., Inc., 80 Phil., 531; 45 Off. Gaz., 159). Besides, although the Company now says that said list, Exhibit C, is not correct, the fact is that, in its answer, filed with the lower court, it merely averred that it is "not certain" that the members of petitioning Union constitute a majority of the salesmen or commission agents of said Company. At any rate, the record shows that the same had twenty (20) salesmen or commission agents when this case was instituted; that, at the time of the hearing in the lower court, there were only fourteen (14) of them working for the Company; and that, with the exception of one (1) of them, the remaining thirteen (13) salesmen or commission agents are members of petitioning Union, and there is no evidence to the contrary. The Company doubts the accuracy of the finding to this effect in the order appealed from simply because only three (3) of these salesmen or agents appeared at the aforementioned hearing. Apart from the fact they were not required to be present at said hearing, the reluctance of employees or agents to do anything that may antagonize the employer, or may give occasion for antagonism, is readily understandable.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner herein, Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, 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