Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13046 May 20, 1960 - EGMIDIO T. PASCUA v. PEDRO TUASON

108 Phil 69:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-13046. May 20, 1960.]

EGMIDIO T. PASCUA, petitioner and appellant, v. HON. PEDRO TUASON, ETC., respondent and Appellant.

Diokno & Sison for Appellant.

Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Camilo D. Quiason for the Secretary of Justice.


SYLLABUS


PUBLIC OFFICERS; SUSPENSION DUE TO CRIMINAL CASE FILED AGAINST EMPLOYEE; NEW CHARGES FILED BEFORE ACQUITTAL. — Where an employee has been suspended because of the criminal case filed against him and thereafter has been acquitted, but prior to said acquittal, new charges have been filed against said employee for which he could be suspended anew, the department head may continue the suspension previously decreed without first reinstating the employee to his former position.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Both parties to this case have appealed from the decision of the Manila court of first instance, in a mandamus proceeding, ordering petitioner’s reinstatement to his former Government position 1 with back salaries, unless he has been suspended or should be suspended by the respondent Secretary of Justice by virtue of the charges newly filed against him.

Such decision was rendered upon a stipulation of facts, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"2. On December 1, 1937, petitioner was appointed to the Division of Investigation (now National Bureau of Investigation) of the Department of Justice and rendered active service since that date, so much so that on January 6, 1949, he was appointed District-Agent-at-large at a salary of P4,800.00 per annum;

x       x       x


4. Sometime on May 14, 1951, in connection with (his) assignment in the PRISCO office at Cebu City, Petitioner. . . was accused in Criminal Case No. V-2971 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, of the crime of falsification of public documents, and on May 18, 1957, the then Secretary of Justice issued the following order of suspension against petitioner:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘In view of the information filed against you, and upon the recommendation of the Assistant Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, you are hereby suspended from office, effective upon receipt hereof, and pending the termination of the case filed against you.’

5. While under such suspension, another criminal case No. V-2999 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu was filed against petitioner jointly with Isidro Kintanar and several others, for "grave coercion" ;

6. In both cases, petitioner was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Cebu but in both cases also, he was acquitted by the Court of Appeals; the acquittal in the Criminal Case for falsification of public documents became final on April 8, 1953, and his acquittal in the criminal case for grave coercion on October 8, 1954;

7. In view of these acquittals, on October 18, 1954, petitioner requested the respondent to reinstate him and to order the payment of his back salaries, but respondent has refused and still refuses to do so for the following reasons. On September 6, 1954, before his acquittal of the charge of grave coercion by the Court of Appeals, petitioner was charged administratively with acts unbecoming of a district agent, because during his suspension from office mentioned in the preceding paragraph 4 hereof, he managed a corporation called the Central Information and Advisory Service, Inc., which is engaged in gathering information of all kinds and supplying the same to interested parties for a fee or price. Again, on October 15, 1955, the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation filed other administrative charges against the petitioner for oppression, dishonesty and negligence based upon the facts subject of the criminal cases referred to in the preceding paragraphs 4 and 5 hereof. All said administrative charges are still being heard."cralaw virtua1aw library

The judge opined that after his acquittal in the criminal cases for falsification and coercion, the suspended officer became entitled to reinstatement; but as there were other charges for which he might have been or could be suspended, said judge added as a precautionary measure, the proviso about eventual suspension by the Department Head.

Against this condition or proviso the petitioner took this appeal, contending it might imply respondent’s power to suspend him now — i.e. keep him out — by virtue of the new charges, without first reinstating him and paying him his back salaries. We think it does imply such power; and the question remains whether the judgment, for that reason, becomes legally objectionable. In view of the administrative charges, the Secretary had the prerogative of suspension, or, more correctly, of continuing the suspension previously decreed. Having failed to perceive the second alternative, and concluding that the suspension on account of the criminal charges should be ended, the court required his reinstatement, with the saving clause, however, that would avoid encroachment upon the Department’s power to take action on account of the two administrative charges, the seriousness of which may be here outlined. According to the first, about gathering information, Pascua imparted confidential matters in the files of the Bureau to private parties, for a price 2; and the second contains the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. OPPRESSION

"In that Atty. Pascua together with his armed companions, on 9 March 1951, at the Lahug Airport Ceb� prevented and cause to be detained, without warrant of arrest and through force, threat and intimidation, four PRISCO agents from boarding a PAL plane bound for Manila (See Annex G). It appears that these four PRISCO agents had in their possession papers linking Atty. Pascua with the Cebu Flour Scandal. On the said date, these four PRISCO agents were bound for Manila to report to their home office. Evidently to suppress evidence against him and under color of law, he wilfully and unlawfully prevented the flight of said PRISCO agents thus subjecting them to greater hardships than are necessary for the proper enforcement of the law."cralaw virtua1aw library

II. DISHONESTY

"a. In that Atty. Pascua, while a District Agent of Cebu and at the same time detailed with the PRISCO office thereat in 1951 to assist in the screening of applications for flour allocation, did then and there, wilfully and contrary to law, facilitated or caused to be facilitated the approval of an application for flour allocation he knew or had knowledge to be faked by stating to the PRISCO officials that the authority for the said flour allocation was in their NBI files when in fact and in truth there was no such authority. (Annex H. Statement of Isidro Yuson, then Auditor of the PRISCO Branch in Cebu) thus causing prejudice to the government and to the persons who were by law entitled to the allocation.

b. In that Atty. Pascua, during his incumbency as District Agent of Cebu in 1951 and while detailed with the PRISCO Office thereat, did then and there, contrary to law, collected the amount of P3.00 for every bag of flour he screened and approved. (See Annex H, Statement of Isidro Yuson, Auditor, PRISCO Branch, Cebu)."cralaw virtua1aw library

Referring to these charges, counsel for respondent submitted these propositions to the trial judge: (a) the new charges against petitioner being quite grave, could give ground for suspension of the petitioner (if he were actually serving); (b) in the case thereof, the Secretary thought it unnecessary to order a suspension of Pascua, as he was already under suspension since May 1957; and (c) the Secretary merely declined to reinstate. Said judge, as already explained, believed the suspension of May 18, 1957 had already served its purpose, inasmuch as Pascua had been acquitted from the criminal charges; wherefore, he ordered reinstatement. However, realizing the seriousness of the new accusations, he added the proviso here in question.

The court thereby practically held that, to keep the petitioner out of the government service, it was essential for the Department Secretary to issue another order suspending him from office. We think, however, that such suspension besides being an empty formality — as Pascua is under suspension — would require an incongruous act, i.e., suspending one already under suspension. On the other hand, as the Solicitor-General observes, the Secretary’s refusal to reinstate, as explained in his answer to this petition, practically amounts to a determination to suspend Pascua, should such "suspension" be still necessary at this stage of the proceedings. So, the court’s determination of the issue involved herein would merely become academic, 3 since it would be within the power of the respondent to frustrate any order of reinstatement.

Now then, it appearing that there were sufficient reasons for the respondent not to call petitioner back into the Government service; and bearing in mind the courts’ hesitation to intervene in the administrative practices of the executive department 4 , and the principle that mandamus may only be issued to enforce a "clear and certain" legal right 5 , we reach the inevitable conclusion that this special civil action may not be sustained. Hence the request for mandamus must be, and is hereby denied, with costs against petitioner. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Agent, National Bureau of Investigation.

2. As these activities occurred during the period he was under suspension, petitioner says: it is illegal to deny me salary in the Government and at the same time prevent me from earning money at the job I know best. But the charge is that he abused his connection with the N. B. I. by surreptitiously getting classified matter therein and selling it to private parties.

3. Cf. Banco Nacional Filipino v. Bejasa, 62 Phil., 957.

4. Case v. Board of Health, 24 Phil., 250.

5. Zamora v. Wright, 53 Phil., 613; Sanson v. Barrios, 63 Phil., 198; Pabico v. Jaranilla, 60 Phil., 247.




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