Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12446 May 20, 1960 - ELISEO SILVA v. BELEN CABRERA

108 Phil 49:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-12446. May 20, 1960.]

ELISEO SILVA, Petitioner, v. BELEN CABRERA, Respondent.

Rodolfo M. Medina for Petitioner.

Arsenio M. Cabrera for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIVE UPON SUPREME COURT IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. — The findings of fact made by Public Service Commission are conclusive upon the Supreme Court as long as there is evidence reasonably supporting such findings (Javellana v. La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co., 37 Off. Gaz., 3110; Phil. Shipowners’ Association v. Public Utility Commissioner, 44 Phil., 362; San Miguel Brewery v. Lapi, 53 Phil., 539 Ice and Cold Storage Industries of the Phil. v. Valero, Et Al., 85 Phil., 7; Halili, Et. Al. v. Isip, L-2458 and L-2476, January 28, 1950; Lopez v. Batangas Trans. 105 Phil., 649; A. L. Ammen Trans. Co. v. Soriano, L-12350, May 26, 1959; Bachrach Motor Co. v. Guico, 106 Phil., 118), and in the case at bar the evidence on record is sufficient to bear out the conclusion made in the decision appealed from that the operation of applicant’s ice plant will promote public interest and convenience.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Petitioner Eliseo Silva seeks the review of a decision of the Public Service Commission, dated September 20, 1956, as amended on June 5, 1957, granting respondent Belen Cabrera a certificate of public convenience to install and operate a 5-ton ice plant in the City of Lipa, and to sell her ice in said City, and in the municipalities of Cuenca, Alitagtag and Ibaan, province of Batangas, for a period of fifteen (15) years from January 7, 1950.

Cabrera’s application, filed on June 1, 1949, was for a 15-ton ice plant and covered the municipalities of Sto. Tomas, Tanauan, Cuenca, Rosario, Alitagtag, San Juan de Bolbok and Ibaan, province of Batangas. Oppositions were filed by: (1) Eliseo Silva, who operates a 5-ton ice plant in the City of Lipa, with authority to sell his ice therein and in the municipalities of Malvar, Tanauan, Talisay and Sto. Tomas, Batangas; (2) Antonio Zaragosa, who operates a 10-ton ice plant in San Juan de Bolbok, Batangas, with authority to sell his ice therein and in the municipalities of Rosario, province of Batangas, and Candelaria, province of Quezon; and (3) Leoncio S. Opulencia and Leonor Lat, who are, likewise, authorized to operate a 5-ton ice plant in Tanauan, Batangas.

On July 14, 1949, Cabrera excluded the municipalities of San Juan de Bolbok and Rosario from her application, whereupon Antonio Zaragosa withdrew his aforementioned opposition. Subsequently, Cabrera and the remaining oppositors presented their evidence before the Chief, Legal Division, Public Service Commission, Atty. Antonio Aspillera, who had been delegated therefor by Public Service Commissioner Feliciano Ocampo, and thereafter, or on January 7, 1950, a decision was rendered authorizing Cabrera to operate a 10-ton ice plant in Lipa City. On appeal taken by Silva, this decision was, on March 19, 1951, annulled by the Supreme Court (in G. R. No. L-3629), 1 which ordered a rehearing before either the Commission en banc or one of the Public Service Commissioners delegated therefor by the Commission, upon the ground that, under the Public Service Act then in force, such function could not be otherwise delegated.

Meanwhile, or during the pendency of the appeal, Cabrera had installed her 10-ton ice plant and started operation on March 15, 1950. After the rendition of said decision of the Supreme Court, or on April 11, 1951, Cabrera applied for a provisional permit to continue operating her ice plant, to which Silva objected. On May 31, 1951, at the hearing of this incident and rehearing of the case, Commissioner Ocampo allowed Cabrera, over the objection of Silva, to re-submit the evidence formerly introduced before Atty. Aspillera. On July 26, 1951, Commissioner Ocampo granted Cabrera’s petition for a provisional permit, subject to cancellation or revocation at any time and without prejudice to such decision as may eventually be rendered on the merits of the case. A reconsideration of this order having been denied, on October 17, 1951, Silva applied from the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L- 5162) 2 for a writ of certiorari for the purpose of having another rehearing and of annulling said order of July 26, 1951, as well as of securing a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain Cabrera from operating her ice plant, upon the ground that the admission of the evidence already introduced before Atty. Aspillera violated the decision of said Court in case G. R. No. L-3629, and was, therefore, null and void. By a decision, dated January 31, 1952, we denied said petition for certiorari and ordered a trial de novo, in line with our decision in case G. R. No. L-3629, for the reason that the Commission had not adhered thereto in admitting said evidence for the determination on the merits of the case, but had not infringed any law in considering said evidence for the resolution of the petition for a provisional permit. Thus, the order of July 26, 1951 granting the same was, in effect, affirmed.

Subsequently a trial de novo, at which both parties introduced their respective evidence, was held. In the meantime, Cabrera had further excluded from her application the municipalities of Tanauan and Sto. Tomas, Batangas, to which the opposition of Leoncio S. Opulencia and Leonor Lat referred. On September 20, 1956, the Commission rendered a decision granting Cabrera a certificate of public convenience to install and operate a 10-ton ice plant in the City of Lipa and to sell her ice in that city and in the municipalities of Cuenca, Alitagtag and Ibaan, province of Batangas, for a period of fifteen (15) years from January 7, 1950. On motion for reconsideration and new trial filed by Silva on or about October 26, 1956, the Commission, by an order of June 5, 1957, denied the new trial prayed for, but modified its decision of September 20, 1956 "in the sense that applicant Belen Cabrera shall produce in her ice plant in Lipa City not more than 5 tons of ice daily instead of the 10 tons there authorized." The case is now before us for the third time on appeal taken by Silva, who maintains that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Public Service Commission erred in granting the certificate of public convenience to the respondent since there is no evidence to reasonably support the decision and the order of June 5, 1957. In fact, the meager decision adduced by the respondent as against the overwhelming evidence of the petitioner showing the lack of necessity for the installation of an additional plant of any capacity in Lipa City in addition to the newly discovered evidence of the petitioner which the Public Service Commission ignored, when construed by the Public Service Commission as justifying the grant of a certificate of Public Convenience to the respondent, constitutes an abuse of discretion to the prejudice and detriment of petitioner’s business, which is entitled to reasonable protection against ruinous competition." (Petitioner’s brief, pp. 5-6.)

The issue thus raised by Silva is one of fact, which hinges on the credibility and weight of the evidence introduced at the trial de novo. In this connection, the decision appealed from says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Applicant’s evidence is to the effect that Lipa is a growing and well populated city with new commercial establishments which every day a considerable supply of ice have to be consumed; that the ice plant of the oppositor which has produced only five tons since it was installed is inadequate for the requirements of the public; that the people of Lipa have to get their ice from ice dealers and the latter have to go to other towns to buy their ice and this results not only in a higher price paid by Lipa people for the ice which they need but also in an irregular and undependable service; that not only the people of Lipa but also those of the towns which are proposed to be served have a great demand for ice because these towns are close to Lipa and ice service from Lipa is easy if there were enough supply of ice in the City of Lipa; that daily but more particularly on special occasions when there is an extraordinary demand for ice, there is no way of obtaining this very necessary commodity; that many people likewise go to Lipa every day for business, or personal reasons and they too add to the number of people who must be provided with ice; that there is no ice plant either in Sto. Tomas, Cuenca or Alitagtag notwithstanding the big demand for ice in these towns; that applicant has operated her plant continuously and the production of her plant has been availed of totally except on occasions when the plant due to breakdown was not able to operate; that the demand for ice in Lipa and the other towns can easily reach up to 20 or 25 tons so that the present production of 5 tons is grossly inadequate; that applicant has continued to invest large amounts in the repair and improvement of her ice plant in order to be able to operate the same to provide the public with the ice that it needs and that her actual investment on the plant is over P100,000, and that public interests and convenience will be promoted by the grant of a regular certificate to her to operate the ice plant in Lipa.

"The evidence of the oppositor, on the other hand, is to the effect that there is no such demand for ice in Lipa and the other towns as testified to by applicant’s witnesses but even before the war and up to the present time oppositor has never been able to sell the total output of his 5-ton plant; that there are really no businesses in Lipa which require the use of ice; that applicant’s plant itself frequently stops operation due to the fact that there is no demand for the production; that as to the other towns, the demand for ice is so little that there is no need for authorizing a new plant in Lipa to supply the requirements of these other towns; that in Tanauan now there is a 10-ton plant operated by Opulencia and Lat and this plant together with that of the oppositor provides all the ice that the public of Lipa and the other towns need so that there is no necessity for the operation of applicant’s plant.

"It appears from the evidence that Lipa City and the towns of Tanauan, Cuenca, Alitagtag and Ibaan have a total population of over 125,000 people. Lipa alone has a population of over 50,000. Oppositor Silva has a 5-ton plant and is authorized to sell in Lipa, Malvar, Tanauan, Sto. Tomas and Talisay. Oppositor’s authorized territory would concur with that proposed by the applicant in the towns of Lipa, Sto. Tomas and Tanauan. Our records show that there is now a 10-ton plant in Tanauan operated by Opulencia and Lat and this operator is authorized, among other towns, to sell in Tanauan, Sto. Tomas and Lipa. We have gone over the evidence presented by both parties at the rehearing very carefully and are of the opinion that the preponderance thereof establishes the need for permitting the applicant to operate a 10-ton plant in Lipa. We are convinced that a 5-ton production in Lipa can not be sufficient for the ice needs of the public considering the population of over 50,000 people of the City. There is also the population of over 60,000 people in the other towns of Alitagtag, Ibaan and Cuenca, without counting the population of Tanauan which is now served by an ice plant in that town. We are convinced that the operation of applicant’s 10-ton plant in Lipa will undoubtedly result in promoting public interests and convenience because thereby the ice requirements of the public which can not be met by the present plant will be adequately served. While it is true that ice is brought to Lipa by ice dealers, we are inclined to believe the evidence of the applicant that the service of ice dealers results in higher price paid by the consumers and at the same time is not reliable and regular because these dealers do not have the obligation of bringing ice regularly. Undoubtedly an additional plant in Lipa to serve the proven needs of the public will be more beneficial and convenient to the people of Lipa than to make them rely on service of ice dealers. We believe, however, that applicant should only be authorized a 10-ton plant and that the town of Tanauan should not be included in her territory inasmuch as there is already in Tanauan a 10-ton ice plant, and we do not believe that with a 10-ton ice plant, in Tanauan, it would be necessary for the applicant to send her ice to that town."cralaw virtua1aw library

Without denying the existence of evidence on the facts thus found by the Commission, it is urged that the proof to the contrary introduced by appellant Silva is more weighty than that of appellee Cabrera. It is well settled, however, that the findings of fact made by the Commission are conclusive upon this Court, as long as there is evidence reasonably supporting such findings (Javellana v. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., 37 Off. Gaz. 3110; Phil. Ship-owners’ Association v. Public Utility Commissioner, 43 Phil., 328; Ynchausti Steamship Co. v. Public Utility Commissioner, 44 Phil., 362; San Miguel Brewery v. Lapi, 53 Phil. 539; Ice and Cold Storage Industries of the Phil. v. Valero, Et Al., 85 Phil., 7; Halili Et. Al. v. Isip, L-2458 and L-2476, January 28, 1950; Lopez v. Batangas Trans. Co., Et Al., 105 Phil., 649; 56 Off. Gaz. [20]3646) A. L. Ammen Trans. Co. v. Soriano, L-12350, May 26, 1959; Bachrach Motor Co. v. Guico, 106 Phil., 118; 57 Off. Gaz. [24] 4433; and the evidence on record, to our mind, are sufficient to bear out the conclusions of fact made in the decision appealed from.

Indeed, the issue in this appeal boils down to whether the needs of the public in the area covered by the decision appealed from are sufficiently met by the ice plant operators therein. Apart from the facts adverted in the appealed decision, it appears that in April, 1947, Silva had applied for authority to increase the capacity of his ice plant, from five (5) tons to ten (10) tons daily, upon the allegation that an increased production was demanded by the "rapid rehabilitation and advancement of the fishing industry in and around Taal Lake; plus the increased volume of agricultural products harvested in the province of Batangas and . . . brought to Lipa City" as the "province’s commercial enter", as well as by "the big increase of population in said municipality and in the municipalities of Malvar, Tanauan, Sto. Tomas and Talisay." This application (Case No. 24971) was dismissed on October 24, 1947, on account of Silva’s failure to appear on the date set for the hearing thereof. However, soon after Cabrera had docketed her application, which is the subject matter of his appeal, or on June 13, 1949, Silva filed another application (Case No. 50513) for authority to increase the capacity of his ice plant from five (5) to fifteen (15) tons, on grounds substantially identical to those set forth in his application in Case No. 24971. In short, therefore, the very appellant had urged the Public Service Commission to believe that the ice plant operators in the City of Lipa and in the municipalities mentioned in the decision appealed from can not sufficiently supply the needs of the public therein.

It may not be amiss to note, also, that, in view of the number of years this case had been pending and of the incidents decided in relation thereto, the Commission had had more than the average opportunity and time to ascertain and elucidate the facts pertinent thereto. That it actually gave due consideration to the opposition filed by appellant Silva and the evidence introduced by him is attested by the circumstance that in the light of the new evidence he discovered, after the rendition of the decision of September 20, 1956, and disclosed in his motion for reconsideration and new trial, the Commission modified said decision by reducing to one-half (1/2) the amount of ice therein authorized to be produced by appellee Belen Cabrera.

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

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 88 Phil., 381.

2. 90 Phil., 777.




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-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12007 May 16, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    108 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13831 May 16, 1960 - DIOSDADO CHAVEZ v. BUENAVENTURA GANZON

    108 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-13092 May 18, 1960 - EMILIA MENDOZA v. CAMILO BULANADI

    108 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-13208 May 18, 1960 - OREN IGO v. NATIONAL ABACA CORP.

    108 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-13783 May 18, 1960 - FRANCISCO CAPALUNGAN v. FULGENCIO MEDRANO

    108 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-15300 May 18, 1960 - MANUEL REGALADO v. PROVINCIAL CONSTABULARY COMMANDER OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

    108 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. L-10948 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO MORTERO

    108 Phil 31

  • G.R. Nos. L-11795-96 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RECARIDO JARDENIL

    108 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-12446 May 20, 1960 - ELISEO SILVA v. BELEN CABRERA

    108 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-12546 May 20, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS P. PAREDES

    108 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-12726 May 20, 1960 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. VISITACION CONSUNTO

    108 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-13046 May 20, 1960 - EGMIDIO T. PASCUA v. PEDRO TUASON

    108 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-13372 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO SABUERO

    108 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-13484 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR CAMERINO

    108 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-13836 May 20, 1960 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-13846 May 20, 1960 - PANGASINAN EMPLOYEES, LABORERS AND TENANTS ASSN. v. ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ

    108 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-14332 May 20, 1960 - KAPISANAN SA MRR CO. v. CREDIT UNION

    108 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-14355 May 20, 1960 - JOSE D. DACUDAO v. AGUSTIN D. DUEÑAS

    108 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-14388 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIANO DAYRIT

    108 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-14426 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN BAYONA

    108 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-9651 May 23, 1960 - POLICARPIO MENDEZ v. SENG KIAM

    108 Phil 109

  • G.R. Nos. L-10046-47 May 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON RODRIGUEZ

    108 Phil 118

  • G.R. Nos. L-13803 & L-13400 May 23, 1960 - JOSE DE LA PAZ v. MD TRANSIT AND TAXICAB CO., INC.

    108 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-13806 May 23, 1960 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-13965 May 23, 1960 - CONSTANTINO LEDUNA, ET., AL. v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ

    108 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-14981 May 23, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. MARCELINO SARMIENTO

    108 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15339 May 23, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-15485 May 23, 1960 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-16445 May 23, 1960 - VICENTE ACAIN v. BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CARMEN

    108 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-12624 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GANTANG KASIM

    108 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-12690 May 25, 1960 - ARCADIO M. QUIAMBAO v. ANICETO MORA

    108 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-12766 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. S. JACALA, ET., AL.

    108 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-12916 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO AQUIDADO

    108 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-13296 May 25, 1960 - SOFRONIO T. UNTALAN v. VICENTE G. GELLA

    108 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-13391 May 25, 1960 - AUREA MATIAS v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES

    108 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-13464 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-13651 May 25, 1960 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF JARO v. HIGINO MILITAR

    108 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-13711 May 25, 1960 - GREGORIO SALAZAR v. JUSTINIANA DE TORRES

    108 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-13819 May 25, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BLAS GUTIERREZ

    108 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-13933 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    108 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-14115 May 25, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SUPERIOR GAS AND EQUIPMENT CO.

    108 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-14134 May 25, 1960 - BISHOP OF LEGASPI v. MANUEL CALLEJA

    108 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. L-14214 May 25, 1960 - RICHARD VELASCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-14500 May 25, 1960 - QUIRINA PACHOCO v. AGRIPINA TUMANGDAY

    108 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-14515 May 25, 1960 - ENRIQUE ZOBEL v. GUILLERMO MERCADO

    108 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-14590 May 25, 1960 - FERNANDO DATU v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON

    108 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-14619 May 25, 1960 - MIGUEL YUVIENGCO v. PRIMITIVO GONZALES

    108 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-14722 May 25, 1960 - IGNACIO MESINA v. EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA

    108 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-15132 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO B. CRUZ

    108 Phil 255

  • G.R. Nos. L-16341 & L-16470 May 25, 1960 - ADRIANO RABE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    108 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12150 May 26, 1960 - BENJAMIN CO., v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12876 May 26, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL UNITED WORKERS, INC.

    108 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-13847 May 26, 1960 - DOMINADOR BORDA v. ENRIQUE TABALON

    108 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. L-14319 May 26, 1960 - EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA v. SUSANO R. NEGADO

    108 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. L-15073 May 26, 1960 - OPERATOR’S INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    108 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-15144 May 26, 1960 - ALFREDO A. AZUELO v. RAMON ARNALDO

    108 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-15777 May 26, 1960 - ANTONIO NIPAY v. JOSE M. MANGULAT

    108 Phil 297

  • G.R. Nos. L-14254 & L-14255 May 27, 1960 - STA. CECILLA SAWMILLS CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 300

  • G.R. Nos. L-10371 & L-10409 May 30, 1960 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. DANIEL RAYALA

    108 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-11551 May 30, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALFONSO FAVIS

    108 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-12260 May 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FARM IMPLEMENT

    108 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-12627 May 30, 1960 - ALFONSO TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-12798 May 30, 1960 - VISAYAN CEBU TERMINAL CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    108 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-12907 May 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO AMBAHANG

    108 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-12958 May 30, 1960 - FAUSTINO IGNACIO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    108 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-12963 May 30, 1960 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. ALFONSO YUCHENGCO

    108 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-13034 May 30, 1960 - GREGORIO ARONG v. VICTOR WAJING

    108 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-13153 May 30, 1960 - GLICERIO ROMULO v. ESTEBAN DASALLA

    108 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. L-13223 May 30, 1960 - OSCAR MENDOZA ESPUELAS v. PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF BOHOL

    108 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. L-13412 May 30, 1960 - DESTILLERIA LIM TUACO & COMPANY, INC. v. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

    108 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-13419 May 30, 1960 - CASIANO SALADAS v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY

    108 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-13662 May 30, 1960 - CEFERINO ESTEBAN v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

    108 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. L-13793 May 30, 1960 - PACIFIC LINE, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    108 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-13845 May 30, 1960 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY

    108 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-13910 May 30, 1960 - MANILA YELLOW TAXI-CAB, INC. v. EDMUNDO L. CASTELO

    108 Phil 394

  • G.R. Nos. L-14069 & L-14149 May 30, 1960 - UY HA v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

    108 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. L-14280 May 30, 1960 - JUAN YSMAEL & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-14342 May 30, 1960 - CIRIACO L. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-14391 May 30, 1960 - GENARO SENEN v. MAXIMA A. DE PICHAY

    108 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14392 May 30, 1960 - ALBERTO FERNANDEZ v. PABLO CUNETA

    108 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-14459 May 30, 1960 - AGRINELDA N. MICLAT v. ELVIRA GANADEN

    108 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-14681 May 30, 1960 - ROSARIO PO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    108 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-14691 May 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO N. TEVES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-14700 May 30, 1960 - BENITO R. GUINTO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-14800 May 30, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. CITY OF MANILA

    108 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-14949 May 30, 1960 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 469

  • G.R. Nos. L-14991-94 May 30, 1960 - JAIME T. BUENAFLOR v. CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORP.

    108 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-15044 May 30, 1960 - BELMAN COMPAÑIA INCORPORADA v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. L-15198 May 30, 1960 - EDUARDO J. JALANDONI v. NARRA

    108 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. L-15344 May 30, 1960 - JOSE R. VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-15550 May 30, 1960 - AMADO TAGULAO v. FORTUNATA PADLAN- MUNDOK

    108 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-15614 May 30, 1960 - GSISEA v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA

    108 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-15696 May 30, 1960 - ELPIDIO LLARENA v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-15792 May 30, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. ANDRES REYES

    108 Phil 513

  • G.R. Nos. L-16837-40 May 30, 1960 - EUSTAQUIO R. CAWA v. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO

    108 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-10843 May 31, 1960 - EVANGELINE WENZEL v. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC.

    108 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-11555 May 31, 1960 - DELFIN CUETO v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-11805 May 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC.

    108 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-12068 May 31, 1960 - EUFROCINA TAMISIN v. AMBROCIO ODEJAR

    108 Phil 560

  • G.R. Nos. L-13033 & L-13701 May 31, 1960 - LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-13295 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO MARIO

    108 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13523 May 31, 1960 - ANICETO MADRID v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-13578 May 31, 1960 - MARCIANO A. ROXAS v. FLORENCIO GALINDO

    108 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. L-13858 May 31, 1960 - CANUTO PAGDAÑGANAN v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    108 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 13946 May 31, 1960 - MARSMAN AND COMPANY, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-14015 May 31, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO

    108 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-14020 May 31, 1960 - MANILA LETTER CARRIER’S ASSN. v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-14201 May 31, 1960 - OLEGARIO BRITO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-14595 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. GREGORIO MONTEJO

    108 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14749 May 31, 1960 - SILVESTRE PINGOL v. AMADO C. TIGNO

    108 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-14885 May 31, 1960 - MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. MARCELINO S. MANALO

    108 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-14907 May 31, 1960 - PURA M. DE LA TORRE v. VENANCIO TRINIDAD

    108 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-15074 May 31, 1960 - CARMEN FUENTES v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA

    108 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-15122 May 31, 1960 - PAQUITO SALABSALO v. FRANCISCO ANGCOY

    108 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-15130 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLIMACO DEMIAR

    108 Phil 651