Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15044 May 30, 1960 - BELMAN COMPAÑIA INCORPORADA v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

108 Phil 478:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-15044. May 30, 1960.]

[With resolution of July 14, 1960]

BELMAN COMPAÑIA INCORPORADA, plaintiff and appellee, v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendant and Appellant.

Nat. M. Balboa for Appellant.

Bienvenido L. Garcia for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS; ACTION TO RECOVER EXERCISE TAX ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY COLLECTED; APPLICATION OF CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS. — The excise tax law (Republic Act No. 601) contains no provision regarding the period within which a taxpayer must bring his action to recover an excised tax erroneously or illegally collected. Accordingly, Articles 18 and 1149 of the New Civil Code should be applied in order to determine said period.

2. ID.; CHANGES MADE AND NEW PROVISIONS IN NEW CIVIL CODE; CASE AT BAR. — Article 2254 of the New Civil Code which provides that "No vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions which are against the law or which infringe upon the rights of others," is among the transitional provisions of the Code, and must be read in relation to, and within the context of Article 2252 which speaks of ‘changes made and new provisions and rules laid down by this Code which may prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the old legislation which changes shall have no retroactive effect. In the instant case, all the pertinent facts occurred after the effectivity of the New Civil Code. There is, therefore, no reason to apply Article 2254, especially since no vested or acquired right is being asserted by defendant, the only question being whether the right of plaintiff to bring the action had already prescribed.

3. ID.; PAYMENT MADE BY REASON OF MISTAKE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF A LAW. — Articles 2154 and 2155 specifically refer to obligations of the nature of solutio indebiti which are expressly classified as quasi-contracts under Section 2, Chapter I of Title XVII of the New Civil Code. Consequently, the law regarding prescription applicable to the present action, wherein payment was made by reason of a mistake in the interpretation of a law, is Article 1145 (2), which provides that an action upon a quasi-contract should be commenced within six years.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


From the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila (in Civil Case No. 34566), in which it was ordered to refund to plaintiff Belman Compania Incorporada the amounts of P273.41 and P172.87, with legal interest from the date the complaint was filed until fully paid, and the amount of P250.00 as attorney’s fees, and to pay costs, defendant Central Bank of the Philippines interposed this appeal.

Two issues both legal, are presented in this appeal; (a) whether the action has already prescribed, and (b) whether defendant Central Bank can be compelled to make the refund after the amounts involved had already been turned over to the National Treasury of the Government. We take up only the first question because it is decisive.

On April 26, 1951 and May 4, 1951, plaintiff paid to the Philippine National Bank its obligations for foreign exchange obtained under Credits Nos. 43729 (PNB I/B 36747) and 41347 (PNB I/B 37605), respectively. On the same dates, defendant Central Bank collected from plaintiff, as exchange tax, 1 the amounts of P273.41 (CBP O. R. No. 002801 dated April 26, (1951) and P172.87 (CBP O. R. No. 002928 dated May 4, 1951) Plaintiff paid said amounts to defendant, under protest.

On November 8, 1951, plaintiff requested defendant to refund to it both amounts, but defendant refused to do so. Plaintiff reiterated said request for the refund of P273.41 on September 2, 1957, and of P172.87 on October 7, 1957; and for both amounts, on December 2, 1957. Defendant, however, likewise refused to comply with plaintiff’s request 2

Plaintiff, therefore, on December 20, 1957, filed with the above- mentioned court a complaint praying, inter alia, that defendant’s Monetary Board Resolution No. 286, series of 1951, be declared null and void, and that defendant be ordered to refund to plaintiff said amounts of P273.41 and P172.87 it paid as exchange tax.

On January 3, 1958, defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that (1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action; (2) the complaint states no cause of action; and (3) the cause of action, if any, is barred by the statute of limitations. On January 10, 1958, plaintiff filed an opposition to said motion, to which, defendant filed a reply on January 17, 1958.

On April 7, 1958, the court issued an order holding in abeyance its resolution on defendant’s motion to dismiss, until after the parties shall have presented their evidence.

On April 11, 1958, defendant filed its answer reiterating as defenses, the grounds alleged in its motion to dismiss.

After the issues have been joined and due hearing had, the lower court rendered a decision which, in pertinent part, reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"Defendant’s collection of the Exchange Tax on April 26, 1951 and May 4, 1951, when plaintiff paid its obligations under Credits Nos. 43729 and No. 41347 is erroneous and without any legal basis because the plaintiff on these dates did not purchase any foreign exchange from the Bank but merely liquidated its existing accounts under the Credits. The sale of foreign exchange in the present case took place at the moment when the applications for Letters of Credit were approved and given due course that is, on May 29, 1950 and January 2, 1951, at which time, Republic Act 601 imposing a tax on the sale of Foreign Exchange was not, as yet, in existence.

x       x       x


"Under these circumstances, and considering the fact that the amount of P273.41 under Official Receipt No. 002801 was collected by the defendant seven (7) days (April 26, 1951) before Resolution No. 286 was approved on May 3, 1951, the conclusion is inescapable that Central Bank Resolution No. 286 is null and void not only because it has not been published as required by law in the Official Gazette, but as admitted by the defendant itself under oath in par. XV of Exhibit ‘B’, the same is erroneous interpretation of Section 1 of Republic Act 601.

"The present suit is directed against the Central Bank, a corporation duly authorized by its Charter to sue and be sued. Resolution No. 286 was issued by the Central Bank and the defendant cannot now be permitted to claim exemption from the consequences of an illegal resolution of its own making.

"There is nothing to the contention that plaintiff’s action has prescribed, because no vested or acquired rights can arise from acts or omissions which are against the law or which infringe upon the rights of others. (Art. 2254, New Civil Code).

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, this Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant declaring Central Bank Resolution No. 286 illegal and void ab initio. Defendant is hereby ordered to return to the plaintiff the sums of P273.41 and P172.87 with legal interests thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid and the amount of P250.00 as attorney’s fees. Defendant shall pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Defendant-appellant urges in this appeal that the lower court erred in not dismissing plaintiff-appellee’s complaint on the ground that it has prescribed.

The contention is correct. It is to be noted that the excise tax law (Rep. Act No. 601, contain no provision regarding the period within which a taxpayer must bring his action to recover an excise tax erroneously or illegally collected. Accordingly, Articles 18 and 1149 of the New Civil Code, should be applied in order to determine said period. The articles referred to, respectively, provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 18. In matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, their deficiency shall be governed by the provisions of this Code." (Emphasis supplied.) .

"ART. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues." (Id.) .

It is not disputed that under the doctrine laid down in the cases of Philippine National Bank v. Zulueta, 101 Phil., 1071; 55 Off. Gaz. (2) 222; Philippine National Bank v. Union Books, Incorporated, 101 Phil., 1084; and Philippine National Bank v. Arrozal, 103 Phil., 213; 54 Off. Gaz. (21) 5698, 3 said amounts of P273.41 and P172.87, were erroneously or illegally collected by defendant from plaintiff inasmuch as the latter had applied for the letters of credit (Nos. 41347 and 43729) with the PNB, on May 29, 1950 and December 28, 1950, long before the enactment of Republic Act No. 601 on March 28, 1951, imposing the excise tax on the purchase on foreign exchange. Pursuant to Article 1149 of the New Civil Code above-quoted, plaintiff’s right of action to recover the aforementioned amounts should have prescribed on April 26, 1956 (as to the P273.41) and May 4, 1956 (as to the P172.87).

However, it appears that on November 8, 1951, plaintiff requested defendant, in writing, to refund to it said amounts. Pursuant to Article 1155 of the New Civil Code, 4 the five-year period is interrupted and should start to be counted again from November 8, 1951. Thus computed, the right of action should expire on November 11, 1956. Since the complaint was filed only on December 20, 1957, the action is clearly barred. It is true that other extrajudicial written requests or demands were made on September 2, 1957 and October 7, 1957, and lastly on December 2, 1957, but all of these came after the period had already prescribed, as stated, on November 11, 1956.

Article 2254 of the new Civil Code which provides that "No vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions which are against the law or which infringe upon the rights of others", and which was cited by the lower court as authority for its conclusion that plaintiff’s action has not prescribed, is inapplicable. This article is among the transitional provisions of the New Civil Code. It must be read in relation to, and within the context of Article 2252 which speaks of "Changes made and new provisions and rules laid down by this Code which may prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the old legislation" which changes shall have no retroactive effect. The second paragraph of Article 2252 reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For the determination of the applicable law in cases which are not specified elsewhere in this Code, the following articles shall be observed:"

And, one of these "following articles", is Article 2254 cited by the lower court.

Here in the instant case, all the pertinent facts occurred after the effectivity of the New Civil Code. There is, therefore, no reason to apply Article 2254, especially so, when no vested or acquired right is being here asserted by defendant Central Bank, the only question being, whether the right of plaintiff to bring the action had already prescribed.

In view of the conclusion at which we have arrived, we find no necessity in taking up the other questions raised in this appeal.

Wherefore the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, with costs against the appellee. So ordered.

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

R E S O L U T I O N

July 14, 1960 - BARRERA, J.:



In the decision of this Court promulgated May 30, 1960, we held that plaintiff-appellee’s action for the refund of payments made on April 26 and May 4, 1951 for exchange tax, filed and instituted on December 20, 1957, had already prescribed and, consequently, we reversed the lower court’s decision directing the refund, with costs against the appellee.

Plaintiff-appellee has filed a motion for reconsideration urging that his action was still timely because, it is argued, the period of prescription applicable to the case is ten (10) years from date of payment. To support this contention, Article 1144, paragraph (2) is cited, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ARTICLE 1144. — The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) . . .;

(2) Upon an obligation created by law;"

Since, it is claimed, the payment here was made by reason of a mistake in the interpretation of Republic Act 601, the obligation to return arises by virtue of Article 2155, in relation to Article 2154 of the New Civil Code and is, therefore, one created by law.

Movant-appellee is partly correct. However, Articles 2154 and 2155 relied upon, specifically refer to obligations of the nature of solutio indebiti which are expressly classified as quasi-contracts under Section 2, Chapter 1 of Title XVII of the New Civil Code. Consequently, the law regarding prescription applicable to the action herein involved is not Article 1144-(2) cited by movant, but Article 1145 (2) of the New Civil Code providing:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Article 1145. — The following actions must be commenced within six years:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) . . .;

(2) Upon a quasi-contract."cralaw virtua1aw library

In this case, the first payment was made on April 26, 1951. Extrajudicial written demand for refund was made on November 8, 1951 (after a lapse of 6 months and 12 days). The demand was denied November 14, 1951. The second demand was on September 2, 1957, or after a lapse of 5 years, 9 months and 18 days from November 14, 1951. Granting the interruption provided in Article 1155, 1 the period or prescription that had elapse totals to 6 years and 4 months. Consequently, the complaint filed on December 20, 1957 is clearly barred.

The second payment was made on May 4, 1951. From said date to November 8, 1951, when the first demand was made, 6 months and 4 days had elapsed. From November 14, 1951 (date of denial of the demand) to October 7, 1957 when the second demand on this payment was made, 5 years, 10 months and 23 days had elapsed. Adding up the two periods will sum up to 6 years, 4 months and 27 days. Again, the complaint based on the second payment is beyond the six (6) years provided for the prescription of this kind of action.

The plea is made that inasmuch as the collection of the Exchange tax by the defendant was clearly illegal or erroneous, movant should not be made to pay the costs for filing the case for the refund of the payments made. This would be true if the action was timely instituted before it was barred by the statute of limitations. But if, as in this case, plaintiff files its claim after it has already been lost and; therefore, had no longer any enforceable cause of action against the defendant, certainly the latter is entitled to have his costs.

For the reasons above set forth, the motion for reconsideration is denied. So ordered.

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

Endnotes:



1. Pursuant to its Monetary Board Resolution No. 286, series of 1951.

2. All said requests for refund, were in writing.

3. See also Belman compania Incorporada v. Central Bank 104 Phil., 877; 55 Off. Gaz. (33) 6665.

4. "Art. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt of the debtor.

1. "ART. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the Court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written, acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor."




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