Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > March 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 30382 March 5, 1929 - CEBU AUTOBUS CO. v. ANDRES D. DAMIAN

052 Phil 883:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 30382. March 5, 1929.]

CEBU AUTOBUS CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDRES D. DAMIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Provincial Fiscal Borromeo Veloso, for Appellant.

No appearance, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. DEPUTIES HAVE POWER TO SUSPEND A CHAUFFEUR’S LICENSE. — Act No. 3045, known as the Motor Vehicle Law, expressly provides that "the Director of Public Works or his deputies" have the power to issue a chauffeur’s license, and to make the law effective and to carry out its purpose and intent, the power given to such deputies to issue a chauffeur’s license carries with it and implies that the deputies, for good and sufficient reason, have the power to suspend the chauffeur’s license.

2. REASONS FOR SUCH SUSPENSION. — This does not mean that the deputies in an autocratic manner, or without good cause may suspend the license of a chauffeur, but it does mean that if the negligence, actions or conduct of the chauffeur is such as to endanger the safety of the traveling public, the deputies have the right to suspend his license, and that the remedy of the chauffeur, if any, lies in an appeal to the Director of Public Works.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff alleges that it is a domestic corporation, with its principal place of business in the City of Cebu. That it has a public utility license to operate a transportation service in that city. That to comply with its certificate of public convenience, it maintains twenty-eight passenger trucks for the carrying of passengers and their baggage, all of which are operated on schedule. That to maintain its service, plaintiff has invested more than P150,000 and employs about eighty persons. That as a part thereof, it employs numerous chauffeurs and conductors, all of whom are duly licensed under the provisions of section 14 (c) and (d) of Act No. 3045, known as the Motor Vehicle Law. That the defendant is a lieutenant in the Philippine Constabulary and claims to be a deputy of the Director of Public Works, whose appointment is made under section 47 of the Motor Vehicle Law, and that "he has under his control a squad of Philippine Constabulary soldiers, who, together with himself form what is considered a ’traffic squad.’" That under the provisions of section 1 (n) of that law, the Director of Public Works is "the actual or acting chief of the Bureau of Public Works," and under section 14 (f), the Director of Public Works "may suspend for a period not exceeding three months, or, after hearing, revoke any license issued under the provisions of this Act." That the defendant, acting on his assumed authority as deputy of the Director of Public Works, "has illegally, maliciously and in excess of his authority, assumed the judicial functions granted by the Motor Vehicle Law to the Director of Public Works in that on numerous occasions, he has arbitrarily suspended for period ranging from 30 to 90 days chauffeur licenses duly issued by the Director of Public Works, or his deputies, which said licenses can only be suspended by the Director of Public Works and only revoked after hearing by the same official, as appears from the following." Then follows five different allegations of alleged illegal interference with plaintiff’s chauffeurs, and that it has complied with all of the provisions of Acts Nos. 3045 and 3108. "That there is no law which authorizes the defendant or any members of the so-called traffic squad to suspend the license of chauffeurs when such licenses have been duly issued by the Director of Public Works." "That the defendant and the constabulary soldiers of the so-called traffic squad in flagrant violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiff and the public generally, is, with use of force, confiscating the licenses of, and suspending the chauffeurs of the plaintiff; illegally prohibiting said chauffeurs from exercising the privileges granted them by the Director of Public Works and arresting chauffeurs after such suspensions, without any legal right or authority." "That the defendant continues and threatens to continue his illegal suspensions and to arrest all chauffeurs whose licenses have been suspended by him or by any member of his traffic squad."cralaw virtua1aw library

Wherefore, plaintiff prays for a writ of prohibition against the defendant or any of his Constabulary soldiers from seizing or suspending any chauffeur’s license that has been duly issued by the Director of Public Works, unless the chauffeur is operating under a license which is delinquent or which has been suspended or revoked by the Director of Public Works.

For answer the defendant makes a general and specific denial, and as a special defense alleges that he is a lieutenant of the Philippine Constabulary, and a deputy of the Director of Public Works, by virtue of an appointment under the provisions of Act No. 3045. That as such he has the legal right to suspend any license issued under the provisions of that Act, and that he has the same authority as the Director of Public Works to issue a license. "That the primary aim of suspension is to prevent any improper or incompetent person to operate motor vehicle and to avoid any practice or commission of any unlawful act which will endanger the public, hence, the deputy to the Director of Public Works is the very officer who can timely and properly order the said suspension," and he prays to be absolved from the petition, with costs.

The case was tried and submitted on the following stipulated facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Plaintiff and defendant in the above-entitled cause, by their respective undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate and agree that the facts involved in this litigation are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. Plaintiff is, and at all times herein mentioned, has been a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippine Islands, with its principal office in the City of Cebu. Defendant is, and at all times herein mentioned, has been a lieutenant in the Philippine Constabulary acting as a deputy to the Director of Public Works for the purpose of enforcing the Motor Vehicle Law, Act No. 3045.

"II. Plaintiff operates a transportation service in the Island of Cebu by virtue of the authority given it by the Public Service Commission and operates 28 passenger freight trucks in accordance with the schedules and times fixed by the Public Service Commission in its Certificates of Public Convenience and to maintain the public service required of it by its Certificates of Public Convenience, the plaintiff employs numerous chauffeurs which are duly licensed in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3045.

"Defendant is now, and has been at all times herein mentioned, a deputy to the Director of Public Works who has under him a squad or constabulary soldiers known as a ’traffic squad’ which said ’traffic squad’ is under his orders and acts accordingly.

"III. Plaintiff has complied with the provisions of Act No. 3045, the Motor Vehicle Law and Act No. 3108, public Utility Law as well as all rules and regulations issued under said acts and all plaintiff’s passenger-freight trucks bear PU license plates.

"IV. Defendant, acting as a deputy to the Director of Public Works has, on numerous occasions, suspended chauffeurs’ licenses of the plaintiff’s employees, as well as others, which suspended licenses were duly issued by the Director of Public Works or his deputies. Defendant in making said suspensions, was acting in accordance with duly issued traffic regulations.

"V. That unless restrained and prohibited by an order of a competent court, the defendant will continue suspending chauffeur’s licenses not only of the plaintiff corporation but of other people and organizations in all cases where he believes the same to be justified by law and in case a suspended chauffeur shall operate a motor vehicle during the period of such suspension, the defendant will arrest said chauffeur for driving a motor vehicle without a license.

"The parties hereto having agreed upon the facts involved in the litigation as above set out, require the judgment of the court upon questions of law arising from such agreed statement of facts, and from the pleadings herein, without introduction of testimony."cralaw virtua1aw library

From a judgment for the plaintiff granting the writ as prayed for in the petition, the defendant appealed and assigns the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. That the lower court erred in holding that the defendant as a deputy to the Director of Public Works lacks power to suspend chauffeurs’ licenses.

"II. That the lower court erred in concluding that for purposes of enforcing Act No. 3045 the defendant is not clothed with the same power as the Director of Public Works as to suspension.

"III. That the lower court erred in issuing a writ of prohibition taking from the defendant the power of suspension"


D E C I S I O N


JOHNS, J.:


The question presented involves the construction of Act No. 3045, known as the Motor Vehicle Law, of which subsections (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g), of section 14, are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) The Director of Public Works .shall cause to be prepared a form, which shall be furnished free of charge upon request, and upon which every person who desires hereafter to operate any motor vehicle as a chauffeur shall answer under oath all questions asked and give all information required by the Director of Public Works, including his true name, address and age, the number, date, and place of issue of his cedula, and the names, kinds, types, or styles of motor vehicles which he is competent to operate, together with the form and amount of their motive power, and whether his senses of sight and hearing are normal.

"(b) The Director of Public Works or his deputies are hereby authorized in their discretion to require an applicant for a license as chauffeur to answer such further questions or to submit to such an examination touching his qualifications as chauffeur, as in the judgment of the Director of Public Works or his deputies, will best disclose the applicant’s fitness and competency to operate motor vehicles.

"(c) If after such examination, or without the same, the Director of Public Works or his deputies believe the applicant to possess the necessary qualifications and knowledge, they shall, upon the receipt of a fee of five pesos, issue to such applicant a license to operate as a chauffeur, motor vehicles of the kind, style, type, or make arid power described in the application, until the last working day of February next following, or until such license is otherwise revoked. Each applicant for a license as chauffeur, except an owner not operating for hire, shall, upon notice that his qualifications have been found satisfactory, and prior to the issuance of said license, furnish the Director of Public Works or his deputies, three copies of a recent and readily recognizable photograph of said applicant, one copy of which shall be securely attached to the license, and two copies of which shall be filed and kept as provided under section eighteen of this Act. If the said Director or his deputies do not believe the applicant to be a person qualified to operate motor vehicles, they shall not issue a license as chauffeur to such applicant, in which event the applicant’s fee shall be returned to him.

"(f) The Director of Public Works may suspend for a period not exceeding three (3) months or, after hearing, revoke any license issued under the provisions of this Act, and may order any such license to be delivered to him whenever he has reason to believe that the holder thereof is an improper or incompetent person to operate motor vehicles, or is operating or using a motor vehicle in, or as an accessory to, the practice or commission of any unlawful act, or so as to endanger the public; and the license so suspended or revoked shall not be reissued, unless upon investigation, the Director of Public Works decides that the operator may again safely be permitted to operate.

"(g) Appeals from the decision of the Director of Public Works on the revocation of, or his refusal to renew, licenses under the provisions of this section may be taken to the Secretary of Commerce and Communications."cralaw virtua1aw library

As such provisions are connected with, and relate to, section 47 of the Act, which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and Communications to designate as his agent and deputies, district engineers or provincial or municipal treasurery at such places and offices as he may deem expedient to assist in carrying out the provisions of this Act. And each and every district engineer or provincial or municipal treasurer so designated is hereby vested with all the power and authority which is conferred by this Act upon the Director of Public Works or his deputies, as defined in subsection (o) of section one of this Act. And the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized and empowered to formulate and issue with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and Communications such administrative rules and regulations as may be found necessary to govern his agents and deputies and to give full effect to the provisions of this Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

Subsection (a) of section 14, provides that the Director of Public Works shall prepare the form for the application of a license and the questions which the applicant is required to answer. Subsection (b) provides that the "Director of Public Works or his deputies" in their discretion may require an application for a license as chauffeur to answer such further questions "as in the judgment of the Director of Public Works or his deputies, will best disclose the applicant’s fitness and competency to operate motor vehicles." Subsection (c) provides that if the "Director of Public Works or his deputies believe the applicant to possess the necessary qualifications and knowledge," they shall issue the license upon receipt of P5, and that "if the said Director or his deputies do not believe the applicant to be a person qualified to operate motor vehicles," they shall not issue the license. It will be noted that in subsection (f) of this section, the words "or his deputies" are omitted and do not follow the words "Director of Public Works."cralaw virtua1aw library

Subsection (b) of section 20, provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Director of Public Works or his deputies shall, in accord with rules to be determined and published by the Director of Public Works, fix the maximum carrying capacity in passengers or freight, of all motor vehicles with the exception of private passenger automobiles. The carrying capacity thus fixed is to be entered on the certificate of registration and the ’Motor Vehicle Register’ and thereby made of record, as will the Director of Public Works or his deputies also fix and record in the same manner the number of persons permitted on the front or driver’s seat of any motor vehicle."cralaw virtua1aw library

The same thing is true as to section 47 which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized, etc."cralaw virtua1aw library

That section also provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"And each and every district engineer or provincial or municipal treasurer so designated is hereby vested with all the power and authority which is conferred by this Act upon the Director of Public Works or his deputies, as defined in subsection (o) of section one of this Act.

And subsection (o) of section 1 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘The Director of Public Works or his deputies’ is defined as the actual or acting chief of the Bureau of Public Works or such representatives, deputies, agents, or assistants, as he may, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and Communications, authorize or detail in writing for the purposes contemplated by this Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

And section 47 further provides that the Director of Public Works is authorized, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and Communications, to formulate such "rules and regulations as may be found necessary to govern his agents and deputies and to give full effect to the provisions of this Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Act contains fifty-four different sections, and is entitled "An Act to amend and compile the laws regulating motor vehicle traffic in the Philippine Islands, the laws providing for the registration of motor vehicles and the licensing of motor vehicle operators, the laws requiring lights of all vehicles using highways at night, and the laws prescribing penalties for violations thereof, and for other purposes."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is very apparent that its purpose and intent is to provide rules and regulations for motor vehicle traffic, and that it vests the authority for the issuance of chauffeur’s license in "the Director of Public Works or his deputies," and that it gives the Director control and supervisions over chauffeurs.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the volume of motor vehicle business is increasing very fast in the Philippine Islands, and that daily many thousands of persons are riding in autobuses operated under the Public Utility Law; that the lives of all such passengers are more or less at the risk and depend upon the skill, ability and care with which the autobus is operated by the chauffeur. It is also a matter of common knowledge that a large number of them are careless, reckless and negligent in the discharge of their duties, and it is almost a daily occurrence that some passenger is killed or injured, through the negligence or want of skill of the chauffeur. It is very apparent from the reading of the whole of Act No. 3045, that it was the purpose and intent of the Legislature to prevent injuries and accidents, and to insure the safety of the traveling public in so far as it was possible to do so. In the very nature of things, the Director of Public Works cannot spread his person out all over the Islands, and to carry out the purpose and intent of the Act, it is necessary for him to act and speak through deputies on the ground, who are presumed to have at least some knowledge of the personal habits and conduct of the chauffeur, the manner in which he operates the car, and whether or not, for good and sufficient reasons and the safety of the travelling public, his license should be suspended. In legal effect, and in the very nature of things, any other construction of Act No. 3045, would leave chauffeurs without any control or supervision over them by any one. That is to say, if the Director of Public Works in person only has the power to suspend the license of the chauffeur for misconduct, no matter how grave might be the offense, the purpose and intent of the law would be defeated, could not and would not be enforced, for the simple reason that there would not be any person to enforce it. It must be conceded that under section 14 of the Act, the deputies of the Director of Public Works have the legal right to issue the license and to carry out its purpose and intent. It must follow that they would also have the right to suspend the license; otherwise, the travelling public would be at the mercy of incompetent and irresponsible chauffeurs. That was never the purpose and intent of the law.

Again, a chauffeur’s license is nothing more than a permit to operate a motor vehicle, and is issued on his own showing and the assumption that he is competent and qualified, and the license may be issued by a deputy of the Director of Public Works. As stated, to hold that the license may be issued by a deputy, and that it can only be suspended by the Director of Public Works, in actual practice, would nullify the spirit and intent of the Act, which is to insure the safety of the travelling public. This does not mean that a deputy, without a good and sufficient cause, or in an autocratic manner, may suspend the license of any chauffeur, but it does mean that, if the negligence, actions and conduct of the chauffeur is such as to endanger the safety of the travelling public, that the deputy has the right to suspend his license, and that his remedy would lie in an appeal to the Director of Public Works.

The decision of the lower court is based upon the strict letter of the law, but the Act must be construed as a whole, and then so construed, the power which the deputy has to issue a chauffeur’s license carries with it and implies that he also has the right to suspend the license for good and sufficient reasons and the safety of the travelling public.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the petition dismissed. This being in the nature of a test case, neither party to recover costs. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


MALCOLM, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Section 14 (f) of Act No. 3045, the Motor Vehicle Law, provides that "The Director of Public Works may suspend for a period not exceeding three (3) months or, after hearing, revoke any license issued under the provisions of this Act, . . . ." Section 47 then authorizes the Director of Public Works to designate as his agents and deputies, district engineers or provincial or municipal treasurers "with all the power and authority which is conferred by this Act upon the Director of Public Works or his deputies, as defined in subsection (o) of section one of this Act." Subsection (o) of section 1 above referred to provides:" ’The Director of Public Works or his deputies’ is defined as the actual or acting chief of the Bureau of Public Works or such representatives, deputies, agents, or assistants, as he may, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and Communications, authorize or detail in writing for the purposes contemplated by this Act." Appearing just before subsection (o) of section 1 is subsection (n). It reads:" ’The Director of Public Works,’ except where expressly stated otherwise, is defined as the actual or acting chief of the Bureau of Public Works."cralaw virtua1aw library

From these provisions of the Motor Vehicle Law, it is evident that the Director of Public Works has the power of suspension, and that power may be vested in a district engineer or provincial or municipal treasurer. But as to subsection (o) of section 1, it defines the phrase "The Director of Public Works or his deputies" and not the phrase "The Director of Public Works." Since according to the stipulated facts the officer who attempted to suspend chauffeur’s licenses is a deputy of the Director of Public Works other than a district engineer or provincial or municipal treasurer, this deputy does not come within the purview of the law.

In the lower court, the provincial fiscal relied on section 4 of the Administrative Code providing: "A ministerial act which may be lawfully done by any officer may be performed by him through any deputy or agent lawfully created or appointed." But the power to suspend is a power involving discretion. It is the rule that without statutory authority, deputies have no power with respect to the duties of an office involving the exercise of judgment and discretion (46 C. J., 1063).

Regarding the argument made with reference to what the la-v should be, that is beside the point for it is for the courts to construe the law as it is. It may be for the public good to have all the deputies of the Director of Public Works possess the power to suspend chauffeur’s licenses. If this be so the law should be amended to this effect.

For the foregoing reasons, I think that the decision of Judge Vickers in the trial court prohibiting the defendant from suspending chauffeur’s licenses conforms to the law and should here be affirmed.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30282 March 1, 1929 - SERAPION ADESER v. MATEO TAGO

    052 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. 30019 March 2, 1929 - KUI PAI & CO. v. DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE

    052 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. 30491 March 2, 1929 - DONATO CRUZ, ET AL. v. TEOFILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    052 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. 30981 March 2, 1929 - ESTEBAN MONTERAMOS, ET AL. v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. 28532 March 4, 1929 - JESUS R. ROA v. CONCEPCION ROA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. 30382 March 5, 1929 - CEBU AUTOBUS CO. v. ANDRES D. DAMIAN

    052 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 30814 March 5, 1929 - ROSALIO GONZALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    052 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. 30896 March 5, 1929 - HIGINO ENAGE v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    052 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. 29462 March 7, 1929 - IGNACIO DEL PRADO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    052 Phil 900

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-15 March 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. 30953 March 7, 1929 - NARCISA JAVIER v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 910

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-30015 March 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. 30247 March 11, 1929 - HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE v. FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL.

    052 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. 29752 March 12, 1929 - SOTERO IGNACIO v. SANTOS CHUA HONG

    052 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. 30264 March 12, 1929 - MANILA RALROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    052 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. 30460 March 12, 1929 - C. H. STEINBERG v. GREGORIO VELASCO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. 29292 March 13, 1929 - TOMASA C. VIUDA DE PAMINTUAN v. JUAN TIGLAO

    053 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 30393 March 14, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO PERADILLA

    053 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 29927 March 15, 1929 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO

    053 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 30291 March 15, 1929 - CATALINO SEVILLA v. GAUDENCIO TOLENTINO

    053 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 30035 March 18, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTASIA ABADILLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 30780 March 18, 1929 - AURELIANO ROSANES v. AMADO PEJI

    053 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 30513 March 19, 1929 - VICENTE ARDOSA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA ET AL.

    053 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 30601 March 21, 1929 - ANTONIO CHUA CHIACO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 32329 March 23, 1929 - In re LUIS B. TAGORDA

    053 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 29503 March 23, 1929 - AGRIPINA GALLION v. NARCISO L. GAYARES ET AL.

    053 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 30020 March 23, 1929 - ADELA ROMERO DE PRATTS v. MENZI & CO.

    053 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 30067 March 23, 1929 - PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CO. v. MARIANO TUASON

    053 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 30266 March 25, 1929 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. FRED J. ELSER

    054 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. 29832 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANUTO ASINAS ET AL.

    053 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 30074 March 25, 1929 - MARIANO CARAGAY v. FRANCISCO URQUIZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 30242 March 25, 1929 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ALVARA FAJARDO

    053 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 30280 March 25, 1929 - NICANOR CARAG v. WARDEN OF THE PROVINCIAL JAIL

    053 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 30305 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLANDINA ISTORIS

    053 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. 30600 March 25, 1929 - RAMON DELES v. ARELLANO ALKONGA

    053 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 30705 March 25, 1929 - MACARIO E. CAESAR v. FILOMENO GARRIDO

    053 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 30289 March 26, 1929 - SERAPIA DE GALA v. APOLINARIO GONZALES

    053 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 30608 March 26, 1929 - RAFAEL CARANDANG v. GALICANO AFABLE

    053 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 28379 March 27, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIA CABANGIS ET AL.

    053 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 29448 March 27, 1929 - JOSE CASTILLO v. ESTEBAN VALDEZ ET AL.

    053 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 29721 March 27, 1929 - AMANDO MIRASOL v. ROBERT DOLLAR CO.

    053 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 29967 March 27, 1929 - JOSE GASTON ET AL. v. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. ET AL.

    053 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 30490 March 27, 1929 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ALBALADEJO Y CIA.

    053 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 30514 March 27, 1929 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. CRISTOBAL ABAGAT ET AL.

    053 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 30837 March 27, 1929 - POLICARPO RADAZA v. FRANCISCO D. ENAJE

    053 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 30431 March 30, 1929 - Intestacy of Angel Gustilo v. PERPETUA SIAN

    053 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 30541 March 30, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE BELLA BAUTISTA

    053 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 30610 March 30, 1929 - MANUEL SALAK v. LUIS ESPINOSA

    053 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 30648 March 30, 1929 - RUFINO FAUSTO v. JOSE VILLARTA

    053 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 30836 March 30, 1929 - VICENTE OLANO v. BERNARDINO TIBAYAN

    053 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 31348 March 30, 1929 - TAN C. TEE & CO. v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    053 Phil 172