Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > April 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14092 April 29, 1960 - SOLEDAD A. VERZOSA v. AUGUSTO BAYTAN, ET AL.

107 Phil 1010:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14092. April 29, 1960.]

SOLEDAD A. VERZOSA, Petitioner, v. AUGUSTO BAYTAN, ARMANDO ZACARIAS, ROSALIO RETENER, HORACIO CUSTODIO, ADORACION CUSTODIO, FELIX ANGELES, ALEJANDRO BELLEZA, SIMEON JACINTO, PAULA JACINTO and DOMINADOR MAGBANUA, Respondents.

Manuel O. Chan, for Petitioners.

Bienvenido T. Fama for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. DAMAGES; BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES. — Where a person is sued not by reason of any act which is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, but, merely on account of the fact that he is liable for the negligence of his agent or driver, which gave occasion for the injuries and damages sustained by the plaintiffs, Article 2219 of the Civil Code is controlling as regards moral damages, it being a specific provision thereon. It prevails over Article 1170, which merely sets forth a general principle on damages.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; BAD FAITH OR FRAUDULENT ACT OF DEFENDANT NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY AWARD. — In a suit arising from a breach of contract of carriage, moral damages are recoverable only when the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, pursuant to Article 2220 of the Civil Code.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


This is a petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. The main facts are set forth in said decision from which we quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In 1953, Soledad A. Verzosa was a duly authorized public service operator and possessor of a certificate of public convenience issued by the Public Service Commission. She was maintaining and operating passenger buses plying the public highways and roads of Zambales, Bataan, Bulacan, City of Manila and suburbs; and was doing her transportation business under the name and style of Try-V-Tran. On September 4, 1953, Augusto Baytan, Armando Zacarias, Rosalio Retener, Horacio Custodio, Adoracion Custodio, Felix Angeles, Alejandro Belleza, Simeon Jacinto, Paula Jacinto, and Dominador Magbanua, boarded in Olongapo, Zambales, one of Verzosa’s buses, hearing plate number TPU-505 s/53 (Zambales), then being driven by Silvino Manglicmot and bound for Manila. Upon reaching sitio Longos, Malolos, Bulacan, the said bus collided with a freight truck which was coming from the opposite direction, and as a result thereof, the above named passengers suffered injuries. They were immediately taken to the Malolos Provincial Hospital for emergency treatment, and later some of them were brought to the National Orthopedic Hospital for further treatment. All the injured passengers were employed by the U. S. Navy, with the exception of Adoracion Custodio, who was a dressmaker, Simeon Jacinto and Paula Jacinto, who were school teachers. Aside from being rendered unable to report for work for the duration of their treatment, they also lost some belongings as a consequence of the collision, which likewise destroyed two carretelas and injured the rig drivers and the horses. Driver Manglicmot was charged with the crime of damages to property with multiple physical injuries and abortion thru reckless imprudence’ in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, where the case was docketed as criminal case numbered 2050. Meanwhile, the above named passengers filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila against Soledad A. Verzosa and Silvino Manglicmot, praying that defendants be condemned to pay, jointly and severally, each and every one of the plaintiffs:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘(a) Under the first cause of action, the sum of P250.00 (or a total of P2,500.00), for medical attendance and drugs, plus whatever amount may accrue thenceforth until the time of their complete recovery.

‘(b) Under the second cause of action, the sum of P3,896.68, representing lost of income incurred by plaintiffs up to the date of this complaint as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

August Baytan P317.44

Abelardo Zacarias P273.92

Rosalio Retener P396.80

Horacio Custodio P317.44

Adoracion Custodio P160.00

Felix Angeles P396.80

Alejandro Belleza P199.68

Simeon Jacinto P270.00

Paula Jacinto P270.00

Dominador Magbanua P417.28.

‘(c) Under the third cause of action, the sum of P1,091.00 representing lost personal belongings of the plaintiffs, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Augusto Baytan —

1 wrist watch (Lord Elgin) P180.00

Abelardo Zacarias —

1 wrist watch (Lord Elgin) P180.00

Rosalio Retener —

1 bag of clothes P80.00

commissary goods P30.00

Horacio Custodio —

cash P65.001

wrist watch (Gruen) P120.001

bag of clothes P50.00

Adoracion Custodio —

5 dresses P20.00

Felix Angeles —

1 bag of clothes P100.00

Alejandro Belleza —

1 wrist watch (Lord Elgin) P180.001

eyeglass P50.00

Simeon Jacinto —

1 wrist watch (Bulova) P140.001

eyeglass P45.00

cash P175.001

bag of clothes P45.00

Paula Jacinto —

1 wrist watch (Lady Elgin) P175.001

eyeglass P45.00

Dominador Magbanua —

cash P61.001

bag of clothes P50.00

commissary goods P20.00

________

Total P1,691.00.

‘(d) Under the fourth cause of action, the sum of P15,000.00, each (or a total of P150,000.00), for moral damages for distress in body and mind, mental anguish and physical deformities.

‘(e) Under the fifth cause of action, the sum of P1,800.00, (or a total of P18,000.00), for attorney’s fees.

‘(f) The sum of P2,500.00 (or a total of P25,000.00), as exemplary damages; and

‘(g) To pay the costs of suit.

‘Plaintiffs pray for any other and further relief to which they may be entitled under the premises.’ (pp. 10-13, record on appeal)

"Only defendant Verzosa registered an answer alleging that the driver of her passenger bus exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family, and that the collision was due to the negligence of Leon Macabulos, who was then driving cargo truck bearing plate number T-700 s/53 (Pampanga), belonging to Pablo Narciso, both of whom are the ones responsible for the damages sustained by plaintiffs. Verzosa consequently prayed for the dismissal of this case. Upon plaintiffs’ motion, defendant Manglicmot was declared in default on January 25, 1954.

"The issues thus joined, several hearings were held, after which the Court below rendered judgment ordering defendants:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘(a) To pay the herein plaintiffs the sum of P2,500.00 for medical attendance and drugs spent by them for their complete recovery; (b) the sum of P3,896.68 representing the lost income on which the herein plaintiffs have failed to receive from the time of the accident to the date of the filing of this complaint; (c) the sum of P1,691.00 which was the value of the personal belongings of the herein plaintiffs which were lost and had disappeared by reason of this accident; (d) the sum of P30,000.00 for moral damages for mental and bodily distress, as well as mental anguish and physical deformities; (e) the sum of P5,000.00 for attorney’s fees and to pay the costs of this suit.’ (p. 23, record on appeal.)"

On appeal, this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, except as to the amount of the moral damages, which was reduced altogether to P10,000. Hence, Soledad A. Verzosa filed this petition to review, upon the ground that the moral damages and attorney’s fees awarded in the decision appealed from are not in accordance with law, particularly Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, and the doctrine laid down in Cachero v. Manila Yellow Taxicab, 101 Phil., 523; 54 Off. Gaz. (26) 6599.

Said Article 2219 reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;

(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

"The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.

"The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this Article, in the order named."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner maintains that the present action does not fall under said provision and is not analogous to any of the cases therein enumerated. Upon the other hand, respondents assert the contrary, upon the authority of Articles 21 and 1170 of said Code, which provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or pub1ic policy shall compensate the latter for the damage."cralaw virtua1aw library

"ART. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is, however, no merit in respondents’ pretense, for petitioner has been sued by respondents herein and was sentenced by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals, not by reason of any act which is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, but, merely on account of the fact that she is liable for the negligence of her agent or driver, which gave occasion for the injuries and damages sustained by respondents (Articles 1755, 1756, 1757 and 1759, Civil Code of the Philippines). With respect to said Article 1170, suffice it to say that the same merely sets forth a general principle on damages, and that, as regards moral damages, Article 2219 is controlling, it being a specific provision thereon, and, as such, it prevails over Article 1170.

At any rate, the decision of the Court of Appeals correctly held that the liability of petitioner herein arises from a breach of her contract of carriage with respondents herein, and, in such event, "moral damages are recoverable only when the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith" in the language of Article 2220 of our Civil Code. In the case at bar, there is neither allegation nor proof that petitioner herein is guilty, either of fraud, or of bad faith.

In Fores v. Miranda (105 Phil., 266; 57 Off. Gaz. [44] 7938), this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Reyes (J.B.L.) , had the following to say:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Anent the moral damages ordered to be paid to the respondent, the same must be discarded. We have repeatedly ruled (Cachero v. Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. Inc., 101 Phil., 523; 54 Off. Gaz. 6599; Necesito, Et. Al. v. Paras, 104 Phil., 75; 56 Off. Gaz. [23] 4023) that moral damages are not recoverable in damage actions predicated on a breach of the contract of transportation, in view of Articles 2219 and 2220 of the new Civil Code, which provide as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘ART. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

x       x       x


‘ART. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.’

"By contrasting the provisions of these two articles it immediately becomes apparent that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) In cases of breach of contract (including one of transportation) proof of bad faith or fraud (dolus), i. e., wanton or deliberately injurious conduct, is essential to justify an award of moral damages; and

(b) That a breach of contract can not be considered included in the descriptive term ‘analogous cases’ used in Art. 2219; not only because Art. 2220 specifically provides for the damages that are caused by contractual breach, but because the definition of quasi- delict in Art. 2176 of the Code expressly excludes the cases where there is a ‘pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.’.

‘ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.’.

The exception to the basic rule of damages now under consideration is a mishap resulting in the death of a passenger, in which case Article 1764 makes the common carrier expressly subject to the rule of Art. 2206, that entitles the spouse, descendants and ascendants of the deceased passenger to ‘demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased’ (Necesito v. Paras, 104 Phil., 75; 56 Off. Gaz. [23] 4023, Resolution on motion to reconsider, September 11, 1958). But the exceptional rule of Art. 1764 makes it all the more evident that where the injured passenger does not die, moral damages are not recoverable unless it is proved that the carrier was guilty of malice or bad faith. We think it is clear that the mere carelessness of the carrier’s driver does not per se constitute or justify an inference of malice or bad faith on the part of the carrier; and in the case at bar there is no other evidence of such malice to support the award of moral damages by the Court of Appeals. To award moral damages for breach of contract, therefore, without proof of bad faith or malice on the part of the defendant, as required by Art. 2220, would be to violate the clear provisions of the law, and constitute unwarranted judicial legislation.

"The Court of Appeals has invoked our rulings in Castro v. Acro Taxicub Co. G. R. No. 49155, December 14, 1948 and Layda v. Court of Appeals, 90 Phil., 124; but these doctrines were predicated upon our former law of damages, before judicial discretion in fixing them became limited by the express provisions of the new Civil Code (previously quoted). Hence, the aforesaid rulings are now inapplicable.

"Upon the other hand, the advantageous position of a party suing a carrier for breach of the contract of transportation explains, to some extent, the limitations imposed by the new Code on the amount of the recovery. The action for breach of contract imposes on the defendant carrier a presumption of liability upon mere proof of injury to the passenger; the latter is relieved from the duty to establish the.

"The difference in conditions, defenses and proof, as well as the codal concept of quasi-delict as essentially extra-contractual negligence, compel us to differentiate between actions ex contractu, and actions quasi ex delicto, and prevent us from viewing the action for breach of contract as simultaneously embodying an action on tort. Neither can this action be taken as one to enforce on employer’s liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code, since the responsibility is not alleged to be subsidiary, nor is there on record any averment or proof that the driver of appellant was insolvent. In fact, he is not even made a party to the suit.

"It is also suggested that a carrier’s violation of its engagement to safely transport the passenger involves a breach of the passenger’s confidence, and therefore should be regarded as a breach of contract in bad faith, justifying recovery of moral damages under Art. 2220. This theory is untenable, in every case its obligation to the passenger is infringed; while under the law (Art. 1756), the presumption is that common carriers acted negligently (and not maliciously), and Art. 1762 speaks of negligence of the common carrier.

‘ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.’

‘ART. 1762. The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his death or injuries, if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced.

"The distinction between fraud, bad faith or malice (in the sense of deliberate or wanton wrongdoing) and negligence (as mere carelessness) is too fundamental in our law to be ignored (Arts. 1170- 1172); their consequences being clearly differentiated by the Code.

‘ART. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.

‘In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.’.

"It is to be presumed, in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary, that this difference was in the mind of the lawmakers when in Art. 2220 they limited recovery of moral damages to breaches of contract in bad faith. It is true that negligence may be occasionally so gross as to amount to malice; but that fact must be shown in evidence, and a carrier’s bad faith is not to be lightly inferred from a mere finding that the contract was breached through negligence of the carrier’s employees.

"In view of the foregoing considerations, the decision of the Court of Appeals is modified by eliminating the award of P5,000.00 by way of moral damages (Court of Appeals Resolution of May 3, 1957)."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is thus clear, therefore, that respondents herein are not entitled to moral damages.

As regards the attorney’s fees, Article 2208 of the aforementioned Code ordains:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendant’s act cannot or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;

(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;

(4) In case of clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;

(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s plainly valid, just and demandable claim;

(6) In actions for legal support;

(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;

(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws;

(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;

(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.

"In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is urged by petitioner herein that paragraphs 2 and 4 of this provision, which are the only ones having a bearing on the present case, are inapplicable thereto for, by setting up an aggregate claim of approximately P200,000, which is manifestly excessive, respondents have, in fact, compelled the petitioner to reject it. It appears, however, that in their letter of demand to petitioner herein, respondents did not specify any sum of money. What is more, they explicitly stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Extra-judicial settlement of their cases, may still be possible, should you be willing to pay them the reasonable damages just and proper for each and every one of them to receive."cralaw virtua1aw library

Again, in the reply thereto, made by the former counsel of petitioner herein, the liability of the latter was denied, upon the ground that the injury and damages sustained by respondents were due to the negligence, not of petitioner’s driver, but to the driver of the freight truck which collided with petitioner’s bus.

Considering, however, that the aggregate amount of the actual an compensatory damages awarded to respondents herein is a little over P8,000.00, and that, as provided in the above-quoted Article 2208, "in all cases the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable", this Court is of the opinion that the attorney’s fees in the present case should be reduced from P5,000.00 to P1,000.00.

With the elimination of the award of moral damages and the reduction of the Attorney’s fees and P1,000.00, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed, therefore, in all other respects, without special pronouncement as to costs in this instance. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez 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