Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13806 May 23, 1960 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

108 Phil 134:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-13806. May 23, 1960.]

PRICE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and PRISCO WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL., Respondents.

Govt. Corp. Counsel Simeon M. Gopengco and Lorenzo R. Mosqueda for Petitioner.

Ezer R. Yutuc for the respondent CIR.

Vicente T. Ocampo for respondent Union.


SYLLABUS


1. JURISDICTION; MONEY CLAIMS ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYMENT. — Where the employer-employee relationship is existing or is sought to be reestablished because of its wrongful severance, the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over all claims arising out of, or in connection with employment, such as those related to the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight-Hour Labor Law. After the termination of the relationship and no reinstatement is sought, such claims become mere money claims, and come within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

2. LABOR; CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT; CREATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION AND RATIFICATION. — Pursuant to the contract of employment existing between the employer and the employees, the latter are to render 8 hours labor. When the employer’s official required the employees to render an additional hour work and the latter had to comply — as non compliance was punishable and actually punished with disciplinary action a supplemental contractual obligation was created both under the terms of the original contract of employment and of the Eight-Hour Labor Law, that such additional work was to be compensated. That the memorandum giving rise to this situation was originally authorized, did not make it illegal to the extent of not being capable of ratification by the duly authorized official. Hence, the court correctly applied Articles 1393 and 1396 of the New Civil Code.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


This is a petition for review by certiorari taken by the Price Stabilization Corporation (PRISCO) from the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations (in Case No. 840-V [6]) of December 27, 1957.

It appears that under date of February 15, 1955, respondent PRISCO Workers’ Union, a labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor, filed with respondent court, a petition praying that herein petitioner-employer PRISCO be ordered to pay its present employees, claimants - members of the said Union, their basic pay and at least 25 per cent additional compensation for one hour overtime work they had previously rendered as security guards of petitioner, from April 17, 1953 to January 13, 1954, and the additional compensation of at least 25 per cent for the work they have been rendering on Sundays and legal holidays, from March 7, 1954 and on.

On March 15, 1955, the petitioner filed an answer denying respondent Union’s claim for payment of one hour overtime work, asserting that such overtime, if rendered, not having been authorized; although some of the said claimants had rendered work on Sundays and legal holidays, the same had already been paid from March 6, 1954; and finally alleging that the said claim for work on Sundays and legal holidays had already been withdrawn.

The case was thereafter heard and, after hearing, respondent court, on December 27, 1957, issued an order requiring petitioner to pay the said claimants, members of respondent Union, their basic pay and 25 per cent additional compensation for the one hour overtime work they had rendered from April 16, 1953 to January 13, 1954. However, for lack of evidence and in view of a petition signed by 59 of the 131 claimants withdrawing their claim for pay for work performed on Sundays and legal holidays, the court dismissed the second claim.

On January 8, 1958, petitioner corporation filed a motion for reconsideration of said order, which motion was resolved by respondent court, en banc, as follows: 2 judges voting for straight denial; 2 judges voting for the setting aside of the order as null and void on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; and 1 judge concurring in the denial of the motion for reconsideration, on the ground that the question of lack of jurisdiction has not been raised in the pleading. As a result; petitioner corporation has filed this present petition.

There are 2 questions of law to be determined in this case, to wit: (1) whether respondent court had jurisdiction over the present claim for overtime pay filed by respondent Union; and (2) whether the same court correctly applied Articles 1393 and 1396 of the new Civil Code to the case.

As to the first question, there still seems to be some lack of clear and definite understanding of the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations, with regards to money claims of laborers or employees against their employers. The fact that in the present case the judges themselves of the Court of Industrial Relations are divided on this matter, attests to the existence of such misapprehension. It is well therefore to review some of the leading decided cases touching on this point, for the purpose of clarifying this fundamental question.

In the PAFLU v. Tan Case, 1 we held that the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over cases (1) when the labor dispute affects an industry which is indispensable to the national interest and is so certified by the President to the industrial court (Sec. 10, Rep. Act No. 875); (2) when the controversy refers to minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Law (Rep. Act No. 602); (3) when it involves hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Labor Law (Com. Act No. 444); and (4) when it involves an unfair labor practice (Sec. 5-a, Rep. Act No. 875).

Later, in the case of Detective and Protective Bureau Incorporated v. Felipe Guevara, et al 2 involving claims for refund of deductions from respondents’ salaries, payment of additional compensation for work performed on Sundays and holidays, and for night work, and grant of vacation and sick leave pay, this Court held that the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction, inasmuch as the claimants were all employees of the Detective and Protective Bureau, Inc, at the time of the filing of their claims in Case No. 764-V in the Court of Industrial Relations. To the same effect is the case of Isaac Peral Bowling Alley v. United Employees Welfare Association, Et. Al. (102 Phil., 219).

Subsequently, in the case of Santiago Aguilar v. Jose Salumbides (G.R. No. L-10124, prom. December 28, 1957), this Court declared that the Court of Industrial Relations had no longer jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims of ex-employees against their former employer for overtime, wage differential, and separation pays.

Again, in the cases of Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Yanson, Et. Al. (G. R. No. L-12341) and Elizalde and Co., Inc. v. Yanson, Et. Al. (G. R. No. L-12345) jointly decided on April 30, 1958, this Court, in a unanimous opinion, declared:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the present case, it is apparent that the petition below is simply for the collection of unpaid salaries and wages alleged to be due for services rendered years ago. No labor dispute appears to be presently involved since the petition itself indicates that the employment has long terminated and petitioners are not asking that they be reinstated. Clearly, the petition does not fall under any of the cases enumerated in the law as coming within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, so that it was error for that court not to have ordered its dismissal.

Indeed, even under Commonwealth Act No. 103. as amended by Com. Act No. 559, the court below could not have taken cognizance of the present case. For in order for that court to acquire jurisdiction under that law, the requisites mentioned in section 4 thereof must all be present, one of them being that there must be an industrial or agricultural dispute which is causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout. With the employment already terminated years ago, this last mentioned requisite cannot be supposed to still exist."cralaw virtua1aw library

Then came the decision in the NASSCO v. Almin, Et. Al. case (104 Phil., 835; 56 Off. Gaz. [9] 1879) in which this Court upheld again the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations to hear and determine the claim of respondents at the time presently and actually in the employ of the petitioner — for overtime compensation for work they were then rendering since 1950 on Sundays and holidays and even at night.

On the same theory, this Tribunal, in the Chua Workers’ Union (NLU) v. City Automotive Company, Et. Al. case 3 where the claimants for differential and overtime pays were former employees of the respondent company, ruled that the Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction.

The latest case is that of Monares v. CNS Enterprises, Et. Al. (G.R. No. L-11749, prom. May 29, 1959) in which this Court, speaking through the Chief Justice, held that the Court of Industrial Relations and not the Court of First Instance, has jurisdiction where the claimant, although no longer in the service of the employer, seeks in his petition the payment of differential and overtime pay and his reinstatement.

Analyzing these cases, the underlying principle, it will be noted in all of them, though not stated in express terms, is that where the employer-employee relationship is still existing or is sought to be reestablished because of its wrongful severance (as where the employee seeks reinstatement), the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over all claims arising out of, or in connection with employment, such as those related to the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight-Hour Labor Law. After the termination of the relationship and no reinstatement is sought, such claims becomes mere money claims, and come within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

We are aware that in 2 cases, 4 some statements implying a different view have been made, but we now hold and declare the principle set forth in the next preceding paragraph as the one governing all cases of this nature.

It appearing that in the present case, the respondents-claimants are, or at least were, at the time of presenting their claims, actually in the employ of herein petitioner, the Court of Industrial Relations correctly took cognizance of the case.

In respect of the second issue, it appears that claimants- security guards have been employed and required to observe a 24-hour guard duty divided into 3 shifts of 8 hours each. On April 15, 1953, the Assistant Chief Security Officer of petitioner corporation, acting for the Chief Security Officer, issued a Memorandum (Annex A), directing the Security guards to report for duty 2 hours in advance of the usual time for guard work. Pursuant thereto, claimants had been rendering such overtime work until January 13, 1954, when the order was revoked after a change of management.

Petitioner, however, contends that said memorandum of the Assistant Chief Security Officer was issued without authority and, therefore, it is not bound to pay for the alleged overtime. But, as found by respondent court, shortly after the enforcement of the aforementioned memorandum, the security guards protested to the management of petitioner corporation, more particularly to Mr. Santiago de la Cruz, General Manager, Atty. Graciano Borja, Director, and Mr. Espiritu, Director. Instead of revoking said memorandum on the ground that it was unauthorized by the management, General Manager De la Cruz told the security guards that the reason why it was being enforced, was to discipline them and that their work was only light and that 1 hour was of no importance. This, the lower court held, amounted to a tacit ratification of the memorandum, on the part of the said official who, as claimed by petitioner itself, had the power to validly act for it. (See also Sec. 6, Exec. Order No. 350, series of 1950.) Hence, the lower court concluded, applying the provisions of Articles 1393 and 1396 5 of the new Civil Code, that any defect, if any, which said memorandum of the Assistant Chief Security Officer may have at the time it was constituted, was, therefore, corrected.

But petitioner urges that Articles 1393 and 1396 refer to voidable contracts and the questioned memorandum is not such a contract but an order issued by one not authorized and, therefore, is illegal and cannot be ratified tacitly.

This view is without merit. There is no question that a contract of employment exists between petitioner and claimants-respondents, and that pursuant to the terms thereof, the latter are to render 8 hours labor. When petitioner’s official required respondents to render an additional hour work, and the respondents had to comply (as non-compliance was punishable and actually punished with disciplinary action), a supplemental contractual obligation was created both under the terms of the original contract of employment and of the Eight-hour Labor Law, that such additional work was to be compensated. That the memorandum giving rise to this situation was originally authorized, did not make it illegal to the extent of not being capable of ratification by the duly authorized official, the General Manager of petitioner corporation. Hence, the lower court correctly applied Articles 1393 and 1396, upon the facts found by it in this case and amply supported by the record.

Wherefore, finding no error in the decision appealed from and the resolution upholding it, the same are hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

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

Endnotes:



1. 99 Phil., 854; 52 Off. Gaz. (13) 5836.

2. G.R. No. L-8738, prom. May 31, 1957.

3. G.R. No. L-11655, prom. April 29, 1959.

4. Mindanao Bus Employees Labor Union (PLUM) v. Mindanao Bus Co., Et Al., 102 Phil., 1179; Gomez v. North Camarines Lumber Co., 104 Phil., 294; 56 Off. Gaz. (12) 2630.

5. "ART. 1393. Ratification may be affected expressly or tacitly. It is understood that there is a tacit ratification if, with knowledge of the reason which renders the contract voidable and such reason having ceased, the person who has a right to invoke it should execute an act which necessarily implies an intention to waive his right."

"Art 1396. Ratification cleanses the contract from all its defects from the moment it was constituted."




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