Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > May 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-7088. May 16, 1956.] BACOLOD ICE AND COLD STORAGE CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. NEGROS ICE AND COLD STORAGE CO. INC., Respondent.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-7088.  May 16, 1956.]

BACOLOD ICE AND COLD STORAGE CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. NEGROS ICE AND COLD STORAGE CO. INC., Respondent.

 

D E C I S I O N

PADILLA, J.:

For a period of nearly 22 years by a certificate of public convenience the Negros Ice & Cold Storage Co., Inc. was authorized to operate and has operated an ice plant with a daily productive capacity of 5 tons, and on 26 September 1950, to increase it to 15 tons (Appendix G; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarycase No. 58242), and to sell its production within the Municipality of Bacolod later on converted into Bacolod City. On 8 May 1952 the operator filed an application in the Public Service Commission praying that it be authorized to sell its production not only within Bacolod City but also in the whole province of Occidental Negros (Appendix A; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarycase No. 66402. The Bacolod Ice & Cold Storage Co. Inc., that had its ice plant in Bacolod City and was authorized to sell its production throughout Occidental Negros except in Bacolod City and subsequently authorized to sell it in the aforesaid city; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythe San Carlos Electric Co. that had its 5-ton plant in San Carlos and was authorized to sell its production in San Carlos and Calatrava; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythe Insular Lumber Co. that had its plant in Fabrica and was authorized to sell its production in Fabrica and Paraíso; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryJesus Campos who had his ice plant in San Enrique and was authorized to sell his production in La Castellana, Isabela, La Carlota, Pontevedra, Valladolid, Pulupandan, Ma-ao and Murcia; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand Elpidio Javellana who had his 10-ton ice plant in Cadiz and was authorized to sell his production in Cadiz. Manapla, Fabrica, Sagay and Escalante, all filed separate oppositions to the application claiming that the efficient service they were rendering their respective authorized territories did not warrant the grant to the applicant of permission to bring and sell its ice outside Bacolod City and within their respective authorized territories. Hearing on the case was commenced before the Commission in Manila and, upon motion of the Oppositors, continued before the Municipal Judge of Bacolod City. Only the Insular Lumber Co. and the Bacolod Ice & Cold Storage Co., Inc. presented evidence in support of their oppositions.

On 23 August 1952 the Public Service Commission granted the applicant a provisional license or permit to sell its production not only in Bacolod City but in all the towns of Occidental Negros, with the exception of Fabrica, subject to alteration or revocation by the Commission at any time and to whatever decision is finally rendered in the case.

After hearing, on 28 August 1953 the Public Service Commission rendered judgment the dispositive part of which is —

After due and careful consideration of all the oral and documentary evidence presented, and finding that public interests and convenience will be promoted by permitting the applicant to sell ice in all the towns of Occidental Negros, with the exception of Fabrica, Cadiz and Victorias, the Commission hereby approves the application filed in this case and authorizes the applicant to sell the ice produced in its ice plant in Bacolod City not only in Bacolod but in all the town of Occidental Negros, excepting Fabrica, Cadiz and Victorias, and applicant’s certificate of public convenience in Case No. 58242 is hereby amended accordingly.

The provisional authority granted in this case by order of August 23, 1952 is hereby revoked. (Appendix C.)

The Bacolod Ice & Cold Storage Co., Inc., comes to us and prays for a review of the judgment thus rendered under the provisions of section 35, Com. Act No. 146 and section 1, Rule 43.

The Public Service Commission made the following findings and pronouncements:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

 cralaw Evidence of the Bacolod Ice & Cold Storage consists of the testimony of Eliseo Emilia, Ernesto Boneto, Gregorio Villas, Julian Parreño, Conrado Gamboa, Eusebio Dionila, Francisco Orbe and L. Alit. The first four testified that they were engaged in the sale of leche con hielo and that they use ice every day but that all the ice that they need, they could obtain from the Bacolod Ice and they never had any difficulty in obtaining this ice from the said Oppositor. Witnesses Gamboa and Dionila testified that they operate fishing boats in Silay and Bacolod and that the ice that they need for their boats they have always been able to obtain from the Bacolod Ice & Cold Storage Co. without any difficulty. Orbe and Alit testified that as salesmen of the Bacolod Ice they go out to other towns of the province and according to their investigations there is no shortage of ice in any of these towns because of the service rendered by the Bacolod Ice Company. The Manager of the Bacolod Ice & Cold Storage, Leandro Gruet, was also presented to testify as to the alleged losses suffered by the said company in its ice business and identified its Exhibit “1” showing that in the months of August to November, 1952 and February and March, 1953, the company suffered losses, and Manuel Roig, supervisor of the opponent company, testified to the fact that the applicant charges rates not authorized in the sale of its ice. Rebuttal evidence was prosecuted by the applicant consisting of the testimony of witnesses Antonio Gaston, D. Espanilla and Cesar Dimson, the testimony of the first being that as a fishing boat operator, he cannot always obtain ice from the Bacolod Ice Company and even fishing boats in Silay, and that this frequent shortage of ice would be remedied if another operator were permitted to sell in other towns of Negros Occidental where there is continuous demand for ice. Dimson testified that as salesman of the Negros Ice and Cold Storage he has found that there are many towns in Negros where an additional supply of ice would be beneficial to the public.

We have gone over the evidence very carefully and are satisfied that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that there is a public need for authorizing the applicant to sell its ice in other towns of Negros Occidental outside of Bacolod City. It is sufficiently established that there are many places in Negros Occidental where ice service is very inadequate if not inexistent, and if this situation can be remedied by permitting an operator to bring his ice to these places, we see no reason why an authority to this effect should not be granted. The evidence of the Bacolod Ice does not satisfy us that its service in all the towns of the province is such that there is no need for permitting an additional service which the applicant desires to render. The Manager himself of the Oppositor company admitted that there are several towns in the province where his company does not send ice, mention having been made of the towns of San Carlos, Calatrava and Toboso. And as to the other towns, there is no concrete evidence that the Oppositors render a service which may be considered as regular. We take notice of the numerous towns comprising the province of Occidental Negros and that many of them are quite distant from Bacolod City thus resulting in difficulties in rendering a daily ice service to all these towns, and for this reason we are inclined to believe the evidence of the applicant that most of the towns are not at present regularly served by the Oppositor Bacolod Ice. As part of its evidence, Oppositor Bacolod Ice has presented its Exhibit “1” purporting to show losses suffered by it during certain months of 1952 and 1953, but as to 1952 it appears that this loss was caused by typhoons which visited that province during the months in which losses were suffered and which adversely affected the sale of ice because in other months the same exhibit shows profits made by the company. Furthermore, said exhibit while showing losses does not point out nor indicate the real cause of said losses which may have been due to other causes but not necessarily to insufficient demand for ice in towns outside of Bacolod City. There are some towns, however, where we are not satisfied from the evidence that applicant should be allowed to bring and sell its ice, these towns being Fabrica, Cadiz and Victorias. As to Fabrica, there is an ice plant of the Insular Lumber Co. in operation aside from another 5-ton plant authorized to Eduardo Lopez; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryas to Cadiz our records show that the grantee of the certificate, Elpidio Javellana, has already installed his 10-ton plant, and as to Victorias, the 4-ton plant authorized therein is actually in operation. We do not believe that applicant should be allowed to send its ice to these town where the ice service of the authorized operators has not been shown to be deficient. With the exception of these three towns, we find that applicant has proven that there is a public need for authorizing it to bring and sell its ice in the rest of the towns of Occidental Negros.

Taking into consideration the findings of the Public Service Commission “that there is a public need for authorizing the applicant to sell its ice in other towns of Negros Occidental outside of Bacolod City;” “that there are many places in Negros Occidental where ice service is very inadequate if not inexistent;” that the Bacolod Ice & Cold Storage Co., Inc. has not satisfactorily shown “that its service in all the towns of the province is such that there is no need for permitting an additional service which the applicant desires to render;” that the Manager himself of the Bacolod Ice & Cold Storage Co., Inc. admitted “that there are several towns in the province where his company does not send ice, mention having been made of the towns of San Carlos, Calatrava and Toboso;” that many of the towns of the province of Occidental Negros are quite distant from Bacolod City which rendered difficulty a daily ice service to all such towns; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand that for that reason the Commission was inclined to believe, as the evidence of Respondent (applicant in the tribunal below) shows, that most of the towns of Occidental Negros were not then regularly served, not only by the Bacolod Ice & Cold Storage Co., Inc., but also by the other Oppositors authorized to operate ice plants, except Fabrica, Cadiz and Victorias where the ice service of the authorized operators was not shown to be deficient, we cannot say that there is no evidence on which the judgment under review is predicated. 1 The analysis made of the evidence for the Respondent and conclusion drawn therefrom by counsel for the Petitioner would be well taken and effective in ordinary judicial cases but not in proceedings before the Public Service Commission. 2

The Petitioner advances and claims that the grant of the Respondent’s application would result in ruinous competition. The Public Service Commission, however, found and held that the losses suffered by the Petitioner in some months of 1952 were caused by typhoons and that the losses suffered in 1953 may have been due to other causes but not necessarily to insufficient demand for ice in municipalities outside Bacolod City. The finding is not arbitrary and whimsical because the Commission took judicial notice of typhoons that lashed Occidental Negros during the months of 1952 referred to and the conjecture as to the cause of losses in 1953 is not altogether baseless, because during the months of 1952 and 1953 when the Respondent was authorized provisionally to sell ice outside Bacolod City, there were two months when the Petitioner made profit.

The judgment of the Public Service Commission under review is affirmed, with costs against the Petitioner.

Parás, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.

 

Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1.  Ice & Cold Storage Industries of the Phil. vs. Valero, 85 Phil., 7; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryInterprovincial Autobus vs. Mabanag, 88 Phil., 436; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryHalili vs. Balane, 88 Phil., 450; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryNegros Ice & Cold Storage Co. vs. Public Commission, 90 Phil., 138; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarySurigao Express Co. Inc. vs. Mortola, 94 Phil., 613; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryAngat-Manila Trans. Co. vs. Tengco, 95 Phil., 58; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryPANTRANCO vs. Tambot, 95 Phil., 661.

2.  Section 29, Com. Act No. 146; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryCebu Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Jereza, 58 Phil., 760; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryValero vs. Follante, 50 Off. Gaz., 1972.




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






May-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-8873. May 2, 1956.] CIPRIANO AMORA, CONRADO MATONDO, APOLONIO SIGNAR, FLORENTINO LOVETE, LORETO CINCO, APOLINAR ROSAL and FILOMENO TABLO, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. FRANCO BIBERA, FRANCISCO TAVERA, MELECIO AGUILAR, SINFORIANO SERIDAN, ANTONIO BRIONES, ANTONIO RED, ISABELO REMOLADOR and FLORENCIO AGUILAR, Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7155. May 4, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JESUS AGASANG, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8049. May 9, 1956.] BUKLOD �G SAULOG TRANSIT, Petitioner, vs. MARCIANO CASALLA, ET ALS., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7261. May 11, 1956.] THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, PASIG, RIZAL, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. HEIRS OF HI CAIJI and ELISEO YMZON, Oppositors-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7902. May 11, 1956.] MANILA PRESS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MARCELINO SARMIENTO, as City Treasurer of the City of Manila, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8399. May 11, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BIENVENIDO UMALI, ET AL., Defendants. BIENVENIDO UMALI, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8718. May 11, 1956.] MALATE TAXICAB & GARAGE, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND NATIONAL LABOR UNION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-8787 & L-8788. May 11, 1956.] BIENVENIDO PACIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. VICENTE VI�AS and GUILLERMO ORBETA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-8830 & L-8837-39. May 11, 1956.] BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL M. MEJIA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9048. May 11, 1956.] MARIANO BEYSA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAGAYAN, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7031. May 14, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EUSEBIO MOLIJON, ET AL., Defendants, EUSEBIO MOLIJON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7088. May 16, 1956.] BACOLOD ICE AND COLD STORAGE CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. NEGROS ICE AND COLD STORAGE CO. INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7240. May 16, 1956.] LADISLAO PALMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HONORATO GRACIANO, THE CITY OF CEBU, HON. MIGUEL CUENCO AND THE PROVINCE OF CEBU, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-5995. May 18, 1956.] MANUEL CHUA KAY, Petitioner, vs. LIM CHANG, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7409. May 18, 1956.] INTERWOOD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, vs. INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD & VENEER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES (INTERWOOD), Respondent.

  • Name[G.R. No. L-7555. May 18, 1956.] JOHN D. SINGLETON, as guardian of the property of the incompetent WALTER E. HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7880. May 18, 1956.] RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION Co., INC., Petitioner, vs. TEOFILO CERDA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8101. May 18, 1956.] MARIANO DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8133. May 18, 1956.] MANUEL C. MANARANG and LUCIA D. MANARANG, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. MACARIO M. OFILADA, Sheriff of the City of Manila and ERNESTO ESTEBAN, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8147. May 18, 1956.] ALFONSO BACSARPA, VENANCIO LAUSA and FERNANDO MACAS, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8328. May 18, 1956.] MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. SOTERO REMOQUILLO, in his own behalf and as guardian of the minors MANUEL, BENJAMIN, NESTOR, MILAGROS, CORAZON, CLEMENTE and AURORA, all surnamed MAGNO, SALUD MAGNO, and the COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8340. May 18, 1956.] ANGEL ALAFRIZ, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE PRIMITIVO GONZALES, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8551. May 18, 1956.] AUGUSTO C. DE LA PAZ, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. CDR RAMON A. ALCARAZ, as Commander, Service Squadron, Philippine Navy, etc., et al., Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8596. May 18, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JULIANA UBA and CALIXTA UBA, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8789. May 18, 1956.] ANG KOO LIONG, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8826. May 18, 1956.] ISABELO I. PACQUING and CARMEN B. PACQUING, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. HONORABLE LAURO C. MAIQUEZ, Acting Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila and AUYONG HIAN, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8874. May 18, 1956.] GAVINO CONJURADO and JORGIA MORALES, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Surigao, and VEDASTO R. NIERE, Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Surigao, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8934. May 18, 1956.] ANASTACIO T. TEODORO, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ARMANDO MIRASOL, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8660. May 21, 1956.] ISAAC NAVARRE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICENTE BARREDO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7991. May 21, 1956.] PAUL MACDONALD, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7746. May 23, 1956.] FRANCISCO PULUTAN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. HONORABLE TOMAS DIZON, as Mayor, the MUNICIPAL BOARD, City of San Pablo, and SIMON MAGPANTAY, City Treasurer of San Pablo City, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8041. May 23, 1956.] JOSEPH ARCACHE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. B. S. CHAINANI, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8292. May 23, 1956.] RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. TEODOLFO ASCA�O, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8349. May 23, 1956.] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MACAPANGA PRODUCERS INC., Defendant. PLARIDEL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8898. May 23, 1956.] PLACIDO PEREZ, Petitioner, vs. HON. ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ, Judge, Court of First Instance of Davao, and APOLONIO PAGARAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8945. May 23, 1956.] THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAMILING, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DIEGO Z. LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8991. May 23, 1956.] FELIX GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ISABEL VDA. DE ARJONA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-6930. May 23, 1956.] ROBERT JANDA, as administrator of the estate of Walter C. Wurdeman, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7532. May 25, 1956.] PEDRO MALONG and LOURDES MALONG, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. MACARIO OFILADA and A. B. MENDOZA, Sheriff and Chief Deputy Sheriff of Manila, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7821. May 25, 1956.] Heirs of Gervacio D. Gonzales, namely: PILAR GONZALES DE DARCERA, FELIX GONZALES, RICARDO GONZALES, JOSE GONZALES, FRANCISCO GONZALES and CHARLITOS GONZALES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. ARCADIO ALEGARBES, EUSEBIO BANDEBAS and JUANITO QUIRANTES, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7916. May 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTURO R. SILO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8055. May 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MORO JUMDATAL, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8227. May 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TOMAS QUITAN, ET AL., Defendants. TEOFILO ANCHITA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8579. May 25, 1956.] PALINKUD SAMAL, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and GREGORIA VDA. DE PALMA GIL, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8586. May 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CONRADO MANALO Y GUANLAO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8589. May 25, 1956.] THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN�S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND DOMINGO PANALIGAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8669. May 25, 1956.] VICENTA REYES, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. GUARDALINO C. MOSQUEDA and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8681. May 25, 1956.] LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, Petitioner, vs. LEON C. PINEDA AND PINEDA�S LIGHTER TRANSPORTATION, INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8744. May 25, 1956.] THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, vs. MAGDALENA A. VDA. DE SAYSON, ETC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8759. May 25, 1956.] SEVERINO UNABIA, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. THE HONORABLE CITY MAYOR, CITY TREASURER, CITY AUDITOR and the CITY ENGINEER, Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-8820 & L-8821. May 25, 1956.] MARCIAL PUNZALAN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9306. May 25, 1956.] SOUTHERN MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ELISEO BARBOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7570. May 28, 1956.] PHILIPPINE REFINING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO PONCE (President of the Employees and Laborers Association, Philippine Refining Co., Inc.), ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-6938. May 30, 1956.] J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MIGUEL DE GUZMAN and LUCIA SANCHEZ, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7151. May 30, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ELIGIO JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7273. May 30, 1956.] THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7444. May 30, 1956.] CEBU ARRASTRE SERVICE, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8025. May 30, 1956.] JOSE AMAR, ESPERANZA AMAR, ILDEFONSO AMAR, TORIBIO AMAR, BERNARDO AMAR, DOLORES AMAR and ANTONIO AMAR, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. TIMOTEO PAGHARION, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8056. May 30, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO BUENAFE Y CALUPAS, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8150. May 30, 1956.] HILARION TOLENTINO, LUIS LAMONDA�A, NERIO MONCES, ALFONSO SERRANO, LAURO GARCES, ENRIQUE COSTALES, JUSTINIANO ORTEGA and TEOFILO MARTINES, Petitioners, vs. RAMON ANGELES, FELIX MAPILI, MANULI SALVADOR and DOMINADOR BOLINAO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8505. May 30, 1956.] THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8640. May 30, 1956.] JOSE FERNANDEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. KEE WA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8690. May 30, 1956.] JULIAN FLORENTINO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8775. May 30, 1956.] LEONCIO DAYATA, alias SEE SING TOW, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. HONORABLE VICENTE DE LA CRUZ, as Commissioner of Immigration, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8962. May 30, 1956.] DIONISIO FENIS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ANDRES F. CORDERO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9325. May 30, 1956.] ROSARIO MATUTE, Petitioner, vs. HON. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch X, and ARMANDO MEDEL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-6858. May 31, 1956.] FERNANDO IGNACIO and SIMEON DE LA CRUZ, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. THE HONORABLE NORBERTO ELA, Mayor of Sta. Cruz, Zambales, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7096. May 31, 1956.] IN RE: PETITION to Change Citizenship Status from Chinese to Filipino Citizen on Transfer Certificates of Title issued to Heirs of Ricardo Villa-Abrille Lim; AND/OR, in the alternative, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment to determine Citizenship status, LORENZO VILLA- ABRILLE LIM, GUI�GA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, ROSALIA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, ADOLFO VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, SAYA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, LUISA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, and CANDELARIA VILLA-ABRILLE TAN, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7544. May 31, 1956.] Intestate Estate of Joaquin Navarro and Angela Joaquin, deceased. RAMON JOAQUIN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO, Oppositor-Appellee.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-7996-99. May 31, 1956.] ESTATE OF FLORENCIO P. BUAN, Petitioner, vs. PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY AND LA MALLORCA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8264. May 31, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTEMIO GARCIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-8352. May 31, 1956.] JUANA BAYAUA DE VISAYA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANTONIO SUGUITAN and CATALINA BLAZ, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8477. May 31, 1956.] THE PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, as Guardian of the Property of the minor, MARIANO L. BERNARDO, Petitioner, vs. SOCORRO ROLDAN, FRANCISCO HERMOSO, FIDEL C. RAMOS and EMILIO CRUZ, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8619. May 31, 1956.] MANUEL ARICHETA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA, HONORABLE MARIANO CASTA�EDA, Justice of the Peace of Mabalacat, Pampanga, NOLI B. CASTRO, PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES and ANTOLIN TIGLAO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8697. May 31, 1956.] CHUA CHIAN, in her capacity as widow of her deceased husband NG YOC SIU, and in behalf of her children with said deceased, NG SIU HONG and MARCELINO NG SIU LIM, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, in his capacity as presiding Judge of Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8749. May 31, 1956.] DOMINGO MAYOL and EMILIO MAYOL, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE EDMUNDO S. PICCIO in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, JULIAN MAYOL and IRENEA LASIT, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8967. May 31, 1956.] ANASTACIO VIA�A, Petitioner, vs. ALEJO AL-LAGADAN and FILOMENA PIGA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9282. May 31, 1956.] EMILIO ADVINCULA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and ENRIQUE A. LACSON, Respondents.