Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > April 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12639 April 27, 1960 - PABLO A. VELEZ v. PAV WATCHMEN’S UNION and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

107 Phil 689:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12639. April 27, 1960.]

PABLO A. VELEZ, Petitioner, v. PAV WATCHMEN’S UNION and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

Pedro C. Mendiola and Borgonio E. Cruz for Petitioner.

Pablo B. Cabrera for respondent CIR.

Laviña & Pérez for respondent Union.


SYLLABUS


1. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; ACTS CONSTITUTING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. — The acts of petitioner in interferring with and restraining the organization of respondent labor union; in requiring, as a condition of employment, withdrawal from the said union, and discriminating against some of its members in regard to the term and/or condition of employment to discourage membership therein; and initiating and assisting in the formation of and supporting a labor association for the purpose of frustrating the demands of a legitimate labor organization, constitute unfair labor practices.

2. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; AUTHORITY TO REINSTATE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE VICTIMS OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. — Section 5(c) of Republic Act No. 875 explicitly authorizes the Court of Industrial Relations to order the reinstatement of employees who are the victims of unfair labor practices, with or without backpay.

3. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING; RIGHT OF A LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATION TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY. — A legitimate labor organization is entitled to recognition and to bargain collectively with the employer.

4. ID.; EMPLOYER, SCOPE OF TERM; RECRUITMENT AGENCY. — Pursuant to section 2(c) of Republic Act No. 875, the term employer includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. The owner of a watchmen’s agency who recruits watchmen for shipping companies, under the circumstances obtaining in this case, falls squarely within the purview of this definition.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


This is a petition for review, by writ of certiorari, of a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations. Petitioner Pablo A. Velez is the owner, operator and manager of the Pablo Velez Special Watchmen’s Agency, hereafter referred to as the Agency, a business enterprise engaged in rendering ship security service. Respondent Pablo A. Velez Watchmen’s Union is a legitimate labor organization, duly registered in the Department of Labor, on July 13, 1953, whose members are watchmen of said Agency. Upon its behest a complaint for unfair labor practices was filed on September 23, 1953, against the petitioner, by the Acting Prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations. After appropriate proceedings the court rendered a decision finding him guilty of the charge. The dispositive part of said decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the respondent, Pablo A. Velez, is ordered and/or directed—

1. To cease and desist from further committing the unfair labor practice acts found committed herein;

2. To make Jesus Cabagnot, Ildefonso Aguirre and Isaac de Castro whole in all their work assignment and to pay them their back salaries and wages which they failed to receive from the time they were discriminated against in the assignment of work until they are put back to their status before the dispute arose;

3. To bargain collectively with complainant in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 875; and

4. To publish or cause the publication of this order, after it has become final and executory, in four conspicuous places in the establishment of the Pablo A. Velez Special Watchmen Agency.

"The Chief of the Examining Division of this Court or his representative is therefore hereby directed to go to the premises of the respondent and examine such books, papers, payrolls so as to compute the back wages and salaries as have been denied to, and not received by Jesus Cabagnot, Ildefonso Aguirre and Isaac de Castro, from July 1, 1953 at the rate of P100.00 a month, August 7, 1953 at P140.00 and June, 1953, respectively, by virtue hereof, and to submit his report to the Court, as soon as possible, for further disposition.

"The rate of pay or salary of de Castro may also be determined from such papers and document herein mentioned."cralaw virtua1aw library

This decision was, on motion for reconsideration, filed by petitioner herein, affirmed by said court, sitting en banc, "with the sole modification that in the computation of the back wages and salaries of Jesus Cabagnot, Ildefonso Aguirre and Isaac de Castro, the basis should be the average wages or salaries earned by said persons for the three-month period immediately preceding their layoff, it appearing that they did not work continuously during regular days because of the very nature of their employment."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence, the present petition for review upon the ground that the lower court erred:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. In finding him guilty of unfair labor practices;

2. In ordering him to bargain collectively with respondent union;

3. In holding that the relation of employer and employee exists between him and the members of the respondent union; and

4. In ordering him to make Jesus Cabagnot, Ildefonso Aguirre and Isaac de Castro whole in their work assignment and to pay them their back salaries and wages.

With respect to the first question, the lower court found that petitioner had been:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Interfering with and restraining the organization of respondent union;

2. Requiring, as a condition of employment withdrawal from respondent union, and discriminating against some members in regard to term and/or condition of employment to discourage membership with respondent union; and

3. Initiating, assisting in or interfering with the formation of and supporting the Manila Bay Watchmen’s Association.

These findings are borne out by the record. It appears that while one Jose Santos was asking some watchmen of the Agency to join respondent union, on July 23, 1953, at the Master’s Cafe, in Pasay City, petitioner demanded delivery of the affiliation papers he (Santos) had with him. When Santos refused to yield the same, petitioner called him a trouble-maker and threatened him with bodily harm. This fact was established by the uncontradicted testimony of Santos, who was corroborated by Pedro F. Fajardo.

Moreover, since July 17, 1953, Jesus Cabagnot, president of respondent union, and other members thereof tried to see the petitioner for the purpose of showing him the certificate of registration of respondent union and obtaining its recognition by him, but they did not find him in his office. So, they advised his secretary that they would come back the next day, and they did so, with the same result. When Cabagnot, and his aforementioned co-members of the union eventually saw him in his office, on July 20, 1953, petitioner did not listen to their representations. Instead, he caused them to be arrested upon the charge that they were making trouble in his office under the excuse that his wife had told him that they were armed and intent on harming him, although no overt act to this effect appears to have been performed by them.

Again, while Ildefonso Aguirre was in the office of petitioner herein, on July 7, 1953, the latter asked him whether he formed part of respondent union. Aguirre replied in the affirmative, whereupon petitioner inquired whether he wanted to continue working with the Agency. As Aguirre answered that he did, petitioner bade him to resign from respondent union, stating that it was the only way by which he (petitioner) could tell whether Aguirre was for or against him. Fearing to lose his job, Aguirre signed a prepared resignation paper then presented to him. Aguirre’s testimony to this effect has not been contradicted.

On still another occasion, petitioner told Isaac de Castro to resign from respondent union, for, otherwise, he would have no work assignment. Hence, Castro signed four (4) copies of a prepared affidavit renouncing his membership, with said union.

The record further shows that, before petitioner had learned that Jesus Cabagnot, Ildefonso Aguirre and Isaac de Castro were members of respondent union, these watchmen used to have regular work assignment. However, when he failed to dissuade them from pursuing their union activities, they were bypassed in the work assignments. Petitioner would have us believe that watchmen work on rotation basis and that his policy was to give preference in the assignment of work to those who have no other job than that of the Agency. However, it appears that there were sufficient vessels necessitating the services of all of the watchmen of the Agency. In fact, its working force had to be augmented, to meet the increasing demands of shipping companies. It is clear, therefore, that the aforementioned members of respondent union were discriminated against in regard of the term and/or condition of employment owing to their union activities.

Then, too, on July 18, 1953, Aguirre overheard petitioner talking to his secretary and one Pimentel regarding the formation of another union. The next day, the organizational meeting of the Manila Bay Watchmen’s Association (MBWA) was held in the Agency, during office hours in a room adjoining that of petitioner herein. In this meeting he spoke and promised to help in securing the certificate of registration of the MBWA. When Aguirre inquired whether he could join this union, petitioner replied that he should first resign from respondent union. The fact that MBWA was organized by him to offset the influence of respondent union is further evidenced by the fact that, on July 25, 1953, he advised Aguirre: "tell them that we also have a frame like yours," referring to the certificate of registration of the MBWA.

The foregoing acts of petitioner herein clearly constitute unfair labor practices.

The second issue raised by petitioner is a consequence of the first. Accordingly, it is as untenable as the same, it appearing clearly that the MBWA was instigated, initiated and organized by petitioner herein for the purpose of frustrating the demands of respondent union and crippling the same. Upon the other hand, respondent union is a legitimate labor organization, and, as such, it is entitled to recognition and to bargain collectively with petitioner herein.

Petitioner insists that he is not an employer, but a mere agent, to recruit watchmen for shipping companies, which are, he claims, their employers. Pursuant, however, to section 2(c) of Republic Act No. 875, "the term employer includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly . . .", and, hence, petitioner herein falls squarely within the purview of this definition. Besides, in the course of his testimony, petitioner referred to the watchmen as employees of his Agency, and, in fact, on July 27, 1953, he entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the MBWA, to which some of his watchmen were affiliated, although this association was established subsequently to the organization and registration of respondent union.

The last issue raised by petitioner is a mere corollary of those already disposed of. Suffice it to say that section 5(c) of Republic Act No. 875 explicitly authorizes the Court of Industrial Relations, to order the reinstatement of employees who are the victims of unfair labor practices "with or without backpay", and it appearing from the record that Cabagnot, Aguirre and Castro were not given their usual assignments on account of their union activities, it is only logical that petitioner be sentenced to pay them such compensation as they would have received had they gotten their regular assignments.

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

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.




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






April-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12170 April 18, 1960 - PEOPLE’S SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. PAZ PUEY VDA. DE LIMCACO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO

    107 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-14133 April 18, 1960 - INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA v. PHIL. PORTS TERMINAL, INC.

    107 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-14159 April 18, 1960 - DANILO CHANNIE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. L-13282 April 22, 1960 - LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 636

  • G.R. No. L-12973 April 25, 1960 - BARENG v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS., ET AL.

    107 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-13317 April 25, 1960 - R. S. PAÑGILINAN & CO. v. HON. JUDGE L. PASICOLAN, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. L-13557 April 25, 1960 - DONATO LAJOM v. HON. JOSE N. LEUTERIO

    107 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-13981 April 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS RODRIGUEZ

    107 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-14224 April 25, 1960 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. LUCIO JAVILLONAR, ET AL.

    107 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-14889 April 25, 1960 - NORBERTO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. AMADO SANTIAGO, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-14901 April 25, 1960 - VERONICA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., v. MANUEL SAGALES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 673

  • G.R. No. L-11797. 27 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO BELTRAN

    107 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-12058 April 27, 1960 - JOSE BERNABE & CO., INC. v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC.

    107 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-12410 April 27, 1960 - MIGUEL G. PACTOR v. LUCRECIA P. PESTAÑO

    107 Phil 685

  • G.R. No. L-12639 April 27, 1960 - PABLO A. VELEZ v. PAV WATCHMEN’S UNION and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    107 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-12679 April 27, 1960 - MARIA C. VDA. DE LAPORE v. NATIVIDAD L. PASCUAL

    107 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-12917 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL LABATETE

    107 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. L-13222 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUILINO ARAGON and RAMON LOPEZ

    107 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-13224 April 27, 1960 - PEDRO TAN CONA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. L-13315 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA BULING

    107 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-13496 April 27, 1960 - Dy Shui Sheng v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-13653 April 27, 1960 - MUN. TREASURER OF PILI, CAMARINES SUR, ET AL. v. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ETC AND PALACIO

    107 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-13680 April 27, 1960 - MAURO LOZANA v. SERAFIN DEPAKAKIBO

    107 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. L-13708 April 27, 1960 - SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO., INC. v. GLOBE ASSURANCE CO., INC.

    107 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-14191 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE NARVAS

    107 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. L-14246 April 27, 1960 - TAN SENG PAO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

    107 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-14414 April 27, 1960 - SEVERINO SALEN and ELENA SALBANERA v. JOSE BALCE

    107 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. L-14576 April 27, 1960 - JOSE GONZALES, ET AL. v. BENIGNO ALDANA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-14967 April 27, 1960 - ORLANDO DE LEON v. HON. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. L-15435 April 27, 1960 - VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL. v. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-10831 28 April 28, 1960 - RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. MARIANO GONZAGA

    107 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-12741 28 April 28, 1960 - DEMETRIA FLORES v. PHIL. ALIEN PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR

    107 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-13118 April 28, 1960 - MACONDRAY & COMPANY, INC. v. DELGADO BROS. INC.

    107 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. L-13172 April 28, 1960 - GILBERT RILLON v. FILEMON RILLON

    107 Phil 783

  • G.R. No. L-13313 April 28, 1960 - AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE ASSN. OF HINIGARAN v. ESTANISLAO YULO YUSAY, ET AL.

    107 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-13385 April 28, 1960 - SOCORRO KE. LADRERA v. SEC. OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

    107 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-13501 April 28, 1960 - JOSE V. VILLASIN v. SEVEN-UP BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHILS.

    107 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-13718 April 28, 1960 - DEOGRACIAS REMO and MUN. OF GOA, CAM. SUR v. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO AND ANGEL ENCISO

    107 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-13911 April 28, 1960 - CESAR ROBLES, ET AL. v. DONATO TIMARIO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-14151 April 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENCARNACION JACOBO

    107 Phil 821

  • G.R. No. L-14248 April 28, 1960 - NEW MANILA LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14434 April 28, 1960 - EUSEBIO ESPINELI, ET AL. v. AMADO S. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-14606 April 28, 1960 - LAGUNA TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

    107 Phil 833

  • G.R. No. L-14713 April 28, 1960 - MARIAN AFAN v. APOLINARIO S. DE GUZMAN

    107 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-15012 April 28, 1960 - ANTONIO DIMALIBOT v. ARSENIO N. SALCEDO

    107 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. L-15416 April 28, 1960 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 849

  • Adm. Case No. 275 April 29, 1960 - GERVACIO L. LIWAG v. GILBERTO NERI

    107 Phil 852

  • G.R. No. L-7133 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN LAROSA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. L-9532 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO CATAO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-10675 April 29, 1960 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. ERNESTA CABAGNOT VDA. DE HIO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. L-11754 April 29, 1960 - SATURNINO D. VILLORIA v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. L-11773 April 29, 1960 - JUAN T. CHUIDIAN v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    107 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-12089 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRIA E. YANZA

    107 Phil 888

  • G.R. No. L-12165 April 29, 1960 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. ANTONIO VILLARAMA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 891

  • G.R. No. L-2180 April 29, 1960 - SOLOMON A. MAGANA v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-12189 April 29, 1960 - FRANCISCA GALLARDO v. HERMENEGILDA S. MORALES

    107 Phil 903

  • G.R. No. L-12270 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO CANO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-12256 April 29, 1960 - MANILA UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., INC. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ETC. ET AL.

    107 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-12503 April 29, 1960 - CONFEDERATED SONS OF LABOR v. ANAKAN LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

    107 Phil 915

  • G.R. No. L-12538 April 29, 1960 - GAUDENCIO LACSON v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

    107 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12644 April 29, 1960 - KOPPEL (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. RUSTICO A. MAGALLANES

    107 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12817 April 29, 1960 - JULIO D. ENRIQUEZ, SR. v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ

    107 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-12872 April 29, 1960 - DELGADO BROS., INC. v. LI YAO & COMPANY, ET AL.

    107 Phil 939

  • G.R. No. L-12945 April 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MARIANO R. LACSON

    107 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-12965 April 29, 1960 - CARMELINO MENDOZA v. JOSEFINA DE CASTRO

    107 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-13030 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MITRA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 951

  • G.R. Nos. L-13099 & L-13462 April 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO.

    107 Phil 965

  • G.R. No. L-13101 April 29, 1960 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. SILVERIO BLAQUERA

    107 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. L-13334 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO M. DURAN, JR.

    107 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-13459 April 29, 1960 - DEOMEDES S. ROJAS v. ROSA PAPA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. L-13500 April 29, 1960 - SUN BROTHERS & COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

    107 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-13569 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO RESPECIA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-13667 April 29, 1960 - PRIMITIVO ANSAY, ETC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

    107 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-13753 April 29, 1960 - DOMINGO CUI, ET AL. v. LUCIO ORTIZ, ETC.

    107 Phil 1000

  • G.R. No. L-13778 April 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC. v. UNION OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-13888 April 29, 1960 - NATIONAL SHIPYARD AND STEEL CORPORATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-14092 April 29, 1960 - SOLEDAD A. VERZOSA v. AUGUSTO BAYTAN, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-14271 April 29, 1960 - YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    107 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-14298 April 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BRICCIO INCIONG, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1024

  • G.R. No. L-14323 April 29, 1960 - ANTERO SORIANO, JR. v. EMILIO L. GALANG

    107 Phil 1026

  • G.R. No. L-14334 April 29, 1960 - CARLOS GOZON v. ISRAEL M. MALAPITAN, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-14347 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMUALDO LOPEZ

    107 Phil 1039

  • G.R. No. L-14487 April 29, 1960 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. DIEGO PEREZ

    107 Phil 1043

  • G.R. No. L-14548 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIO ANDRES

    107 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-14677 April 29, 1960 - MARGARITA LEYSON LAURENTE v. ELISEO CAUNCA

    107 Phil 1051

  • G.R. No. L-14880 April 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS

    107 Phil 1055

  • G.R. No. L-15048 April 29, 1960 - MARIANO QUITIQUIT v. SALVADOR VILLACORTA

    107 Phil 1060

  • G.R. No. L-15125 April 29, 1960 - FRANCISCA ROMASANTA v. FELIX SANCHEZ

    107 Phil 1065

  • G.R. No. L-15372 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE B. QUESADA

    107 Phil 1068

  • G.R. No. L-15609 April 29, 1960 - RAFAEL MARCELO v. EULOGIO MENCIAS ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 1071

  • G.R. No. L-15689 April 29, 1960 - MARIA GERVACIO BLAS, ET AL. v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1078

  • G.R. No. L-15838 April 29, 1960 - CAYETANO DANGUE v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1083

  • G.R. No. L-15966 April 29, 1960 - MAXIMA ACIERTO, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1088

  • G.R. No. L-12090 April 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1091

  • G.R. No. L-12716 April 30, 1960 - JOSE BALDIVIA, ET AL. v. FLAVIANO LOTA

    107 Phil 1099

  • G.R. No. L-12880 April 30, 1960 - FLORA A. DE DEL CASTILLO, ET AL. v. ISABEL S. DE SAMONTE

    107 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-12892 April 30, 1960 - CITY OF CEBU v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS and SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

    107 Phil 1112

  • G.R. No. L-13340 April 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO GUZMAN

    107 Phil 1122

  • G.R. No. L-13429 April 30, 1960 - LUIS SANCHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-13493 April 30, 1960 - LUCIANO DE LA ROSA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    107 Phil 1131

  • G.R. No. L-14117 April 30, 1960 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. JUANITO NASTOR

    107 Phil 1136

  • G.R. No. L-14277 April 30, 1960 - MANUEL L. FERNANDEZ v. ELOY B. BELLO

    107 Phil 1140

  • G.R. No. L-14580 April 39, 1960 - BEOFNATO ATAY, ET AL. v. DIEGO H. TY DELING, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1146

  • G.R. No. L-14714 April 30, 1960 - ARISTON ANDAYA, ET AL. v. MELENCIO MANANSALA

    107 Phil 1151

  • G.R. Nos. L-14881 & L-15001-7 April 30, 1960 - JOSE B. YUSAY v. HILARIO ALOJADO, ET. AL.

    107 Phil 1156

  • G.R. No. L-14925 April 30, 1960 - MARTA VDA. DE DE LA CRUZ v. GENARO TAN TORRES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1163