Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > May 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16146 May 31, 1961 - ACTING DIRECTOR, ET AL. v. HERMOGENES CALUAG:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16146. May 31, 1961.]

THE ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, for and in behalf of the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch IV — Quezon City) SIXTO MAGDALUYO, CARLOS MAGDALUYO and RODOLFO TAYLAN, Respondents.

Solicitor General for Petitioner.

Claro M. Recto for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL AND ERROR; COURT OFFICERS AND CUSTODIANS, RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM FINAL ORDERS AFFECTING CUSTODY. — As a law enforcing agent, whose duty it is to execute the law, the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation has sufficient personality to assail the order of the court directing the return to the owners of the slot machines seized upon his orders, and the order dismissing his appeal therefrom, particularly where the court has threatened to punish him for contempt unless the slot machines were returned to the owners. Judicial administrators and receivers are, likewise, officers of the court, in the custody of the property under administration or receivership. Yet, they may appeal from such final orders or decisions of the court affecting such custody as they consider erroneous.

2. ID.; ORDERS; WHEN FINAL AND APPEALABLE. — An order of the court is final and appealable if it settles definitely the matter therein disposed of, and no further proceeding would ensue, thereafter, in connection therewith.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


This is an original petition for mandamus and certiorari, with preliminary injunction, to annul certain orders of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and to compel the same to give due course to an appeal interposed by herein petitioner, Acting Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, for and in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, and to meanwhile restrain respondent Judge from executing one of the orders complained of.

On June 3, 1959, or three (3) days after the promulgation of our decision in Phillips v. The Municipal Mayor of Caloocan, G.R. No. L-9183 — holding that slot machines of the jackpot type are gambling devices, the operation of which is illegal, even if authorized by a license issued in pursuance of a municipal ordinance, for the same is illegal it being in contravention of section 2242 (j) of the Revised Administrative Code, imposing upon municipal councils the duty "to prohibit and penalize . . . gambling" — petitioner herein, through his agents, applied, from the Court of First Instance of Rizal, for search warrants for the purpose of seizing jackpot slot machines which, allegedly, were being operated in night and day clubs, restaurants and other places of amusement in Pasay City, specified in the respective applications. After due examination of petitioner’s agents, said court issued, on the same date, the search warrants applied for, pursuant to which said agents seized about 68 jackpot slot machines and then filed in court, on June 5, 1959, the corresponding returns of said warrants.

Subsequently, a special prosecutor of the Department of Justice filed criminal cases for gambling against the owners of seventeen (17) of the slot machines thus seized, for which no permit had been issued by Pasay City. No criminal charges were preferred, however, against the owners of the remaining 51 slot machines, seized as above stated, which were covered by licenses issued pursuant to Ordinance No. 106 of said City. On September 1, 1959, the owners of said 51 slot machines, namely, respondents Sixto Magdaluyo and Rodolfo Taylan — hereinafter referred to as respondent-owners — moved for the return of said slot machines upon the ground that the same were not involved in any criminal case pending in court. (Carlos Magdaluyo is, likewise, one of the respondents in the case at bar, as one of the owners of said slot machines, who allegedly filed said motion, but, in his answer to the petition herein, Carlos Magdaluyo denied that he owns any of the machines in question and alleged that he had been wrongfully included as respondent herein.) Petitioner objected to said motion on September 1, 1959, alleging that the State, under the "Theory of Preventive Justice", may retain said slot machines to prevent the use thereof in committing further crimes, independently of the filing of criminal actions in connection with said slot machines, for the same have, allegedly, no legitimate use. This notwithstanding, by an order dated September 19, 1959, respondent Hon. Hermogenes Caluag, as Judge of First instance of Rizal, directed the return of said slot machines as prayed for by respondent-owners.

Copy of said order was, on September 24, 1959, served upon petitioner herein, who, eight (8) days later, or on October 1, 1959, filed his notice of appeal from said order. Meanwhile, or on September 25, 1959, respondent-owners had moved for the immediate execution of the order of September 19, 1959, upon the theory that it is immediately executory. Petitioner objected thereto, on October 1, 1959, upon the ground that the immediate execution of said order of September 19, 1959, would render his appeal academic and nugatory. Five (5) days later, or on October 6, 1959, petitioner filed his record on appeal. The next day, respondent-owners moved to dismiss petitioner’s appeal, alleging that the order of September 19, 1959, was interlocutory and, hence, unappealable. Subsequently, or on October 16, 1959, said respondent-owners filed an urgent motion praying that petitioner be cited for contempt of court, in view of his failure to return the aforementioned slot machines, despite the order of September 19, 1959. Soon thereafter, or on October 19, 1959, respondent Judge issued an order dismissing petitioner’s appeal, upon the theory that the order of September 19, 1959 was interlocutory and unappealable.

On October 20, 1959, copy of this order was served upon petitioner, who, the next day moved for its reconsideration. Prior thereto, or on October 20, 1959, respondent-owners filed a supplemental "motion for contempt", reiterating their prayer that petitioner be immediately compelled to return said 51 slot machines under penalty of contempt. Four (4) days later, or on October 24, 1959, respondent Judge denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and ordered him to appear in court on October 30, 1959, and "show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for his failure to deliver the slot machines in question as per order of the Court." Hence, on October 28, 1959, petitioner herein instituted the present action for certiorari and mandamus, with preliminary injunction, upon the ground that, in ordering the immediate return of said slot machines and in threatening to hold him in contempt unless he delivered the same to respondent-owners, despite the appeal taken by him from the order for the return thereof, respondent Judge had acted with grave abuse of discretion; that in dismissing petitioner’s appeal, respondent Judge had unlawfully excluded him from his right to appeal from the order aforementioned; that petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; and that respondent Judge would punish him for contempt unless restrained by this Court. Soon after the filing of the petition herein, we issued the writ of preliminary injunction therein prayed for, without bond.

In their answer to said petition, respondents maintain that the order of respondent Judge of September 19, 1959 is immediately executory and not appealable; that petitioner has no valid reason to retain the seized properties, under the so-called theory of preventive justice; and that, as a mere custodian, for the court, of said properties, petitioner has no personality to question said order of respondent Judge.

With respect to the merits or demerits of petitioner’s alleged right to retain the slot machines in question under the theory of preventive justice, despite the fact that no criminal action has been filed against the owners of said machines, suffice it to say that this is neither the time nor the place to settle such a question, the main issue herein being whether the order of September 19, 1959, is appealable or not. If appealable, the validity of petitioner’s aforementioned contention should be decided in the proceedings relative to said appeal, not in the case at bar.

As regards petitioner’s right to assail the order of September 19, 1959, despite the fact that he is merely an agent of the court, insofar as the custody of the slot machines in question is concerned, we note that, although this point was mentioned in respondent’s order of October 19 1959, dismissing petitioner’s appeal, said order relied, not upon the alleged lack of personality of petitioner to appeal, but upon the theory "that the order authorizing the return of the slot machines in question is merely interlocutory", and that Ordinance No. 106 of Pasay City is valid, unless declared otherwise. Considering, however, that a similar ordinance of the municipality of Caloocan was invalidated in the aforementioned case of Phillips v. Municipal Mayor of Caloocan (supra), decided by this Court on May 30, 1959, petitioner may have earnestly believed that respondent Judge had, not only erred, but, even committed a grave abuse of discretion, in holding otherwise in said order of October 19, 1959, as well as in issuing the order of September 19, 1959. Under these circumstances, we feel that, as a law enforcing agent, whose duty it is to execute the law, petitioner had sufficient personality to assail the aforementioned orders, particularly considering that the respondent Judge had threatened to punish him for contempt unless the slot machines were returned to respondent-owners, notwithstanding the appeal taken from the order of September 19, 1959.

In any event, judicial administrators and receivers are, likewise, officers of the court, and, as such, agents or representatives of the court in the custody of the property under administration or receivership. Yet, they may appeal from such final orders or decisions of the court affecting such custody as they consider erroneous. It may not be amiss to add, that the view in the Phillips case (supra) was, in effect, reiterated in Uy Ha v. City Mayor, L-14149 & L-14069 (May 30, 1960); City of Manila v. Pallugna, L-15305 (September 30, 1060) and Morcoin Co., Ltd. and Suter Inc., v. City of Manila, L-15351 (January 28, 1961).

Referring now to the question whether said order of September 19, 1959, is interlocutory or not, it is clear to us that the answer should be in the negative. Said order is a final one, for it settled definitely the matter therein disposed of and no further proceeding would ensue, thereafter, in connection therewith. Some orders of execution might be interlocutory, such as those issued during the pendency of an appeal from the decision being executed, but this is not the nature of the order involved in this case. When the order of September 19, 1959 was issued, there was no pending appeal. In fact, said order was based upon the fact that no criminal action had been filed against the owners of the slot machines in question. In other words, there was no pending criminal case in connection with said slot machines, and, consequently, there could be no pending appeal in relation thereto. Had no appeal been taken by petitioner herein, said order of September 19, 1959, would have become executory. Certainly, such possible status negates the alleged interlocutory character of said order.

In short, the same was a final order, which, as such, was appealable, and consequently respondent Judge abused his discretion, as well as exceeded his jurisdiction and unlawfully excluded petitioner from the enjoyment of a right to which he is entitled, in dismissing his appeal.

WHEREFORE, the aforementioned orders of October 19 and 24, 1959, are set aside, and respondent Judge is directed to give due course to the aforementioned appeal of petitioner herein, with costs against respondents Sixto Magdaluyo and Rodolfo Taylan. Moreover, the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is hereby made permanent. It is so ordered.

Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, De Leon and Natividad, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla and Barrera, JJ., took no part.




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-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11793 May 19, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11807 May 19, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CONVENTION OF PHILIPPINE BAPTIST CHURCHES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15764 May 19, 1961 - IN RE: ROBERTO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15919 May 19, 1961 - CALVIN K. LO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16871 May 19, 1961 - PHILIPPINE COTTON DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12073 May 23, 1961 - RICARDO S. SANTOS v. MARIANO NABLE, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12777 May 23, 1961 - SEPTEMIO CEBEDO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14343 May 23, 1961 - IN RE: JEW CHONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14702 May 23, 1961 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. LELITA JUGADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14937 May 23, 1961 - MAGDALENA AGUILOR v. FLORENCIO BALATICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14978 May 23, 1961 - IN RE: LILY BANTOTO COO, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15740 May 23, 1961 - JUAN CRUZ, JR. v. CRISANTO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. L-15935 May 23, 1961 - SERREE INVESTMENT v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-16002 May 23, 1961 - LUIS SARABIA, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16014 May 23, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-16584 May 23, 1961 - PACIANO M. MIRALLES, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO C. GARIANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16778 May 23, 1961 - HAP HONG HARDWARE CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE MILLING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17113 May 23, 1961 - JUANITO SUAREZ v. DAMASO S. TENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13139 May 24, 1961 - IN RE: TAN CHU KENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-13407 May 24, 1961 - VICENTE TAN v. MARCELINO SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. L-9686 May 30, 1961 - FELICISIMO C. JOSON v. EDUARDO JOSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11210 May 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CALIXTO MAMALAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12203 May 30, 1961 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FARM IMPLEMENT AND MACHINERY CO.

  • G.R. No. L-12347 May 30, 1961 - HERCULANO GRAPILON v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF CARIGARA, LEYTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12449 May 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESPIRIDION ALIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12808 May 30, 1961 - INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO., INC. v. WANG WAN TAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13031 May 30, 1961 - JAMES R. BURT, ET AL. v. LUZON SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-13664 May 30, 1961 - CONCEPCION NAVAL, ET AL. v. DOLORES JONSAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13768 May 30, 1961 - FLORENCIO DEUDOR, ET AL. v. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14142 May 30, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. J. AMADO ARANETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14152 May 30, 1961 - JUSTITA MANUEL, ET AL. v. FELIXBERTA MANUEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14300 May 30, 1961 - CARLOS PELLICER v. LAUREANO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. L-14475 May 30, 1961 - SOUTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. ANGEL MOSCOSO

  • G.R. No. L-14618 May 30, 1961 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14646 May 30, 1961 - M. BENITEZ, ET AL. v. HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-14683 May 30, 1961 - JOAQUIN QUIMSING v. ALFREDO LACHICA

  • G.R. No. L-14802 May 30, 1961 - IN RE: TAN TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14852 May 30, 1961 - TEODOSIA NATIVIDAD, ET AL. v. MARCELIANO NADAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14860 May 30, 1961 - IN RE: ZACARIAS G. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15127 May 30, 1961 - EMETERIO CUI v. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY

  • G.R. No. L-15146 May 30, 1961 - MARY DE LA PEÑA v. PENG HUAN LIM

  • G.R. No. L-15173 May 30, 1961 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC. v. DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15190 May 30, 1961 - PHILIPPINE PLYWOOD CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-15307 May 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTINO DUEÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15482 May 30, 1961 - GUILLERMO GONZALES v. JAIME HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15569 May 30, 1961 - EMILIO GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15635 May 30, 1961 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15755 May 30, 1961 - RAMONA REYES v. MARIA VILLAFLOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15824 May 30, 1961 - RICARDO M. GUTIERREZ v. ARSENIO SANTOS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15991 May 30, 1961 - IN RE: ADRIAN FONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16122 May 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. L-16196 May 30, 1961 - ROMAN LICUP v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16280 and L-16805 May 30, 1961 - ANACLETA RIVERA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD TALAVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17358 May 30, 1961 - MOHAMAD-ALI DIMAPORO v. MANUEL ESTIPONA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 138 May 31, 1961 - CONRADO S. ACUÑA v. ISIDRO DUNCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11329 May 31, 1961 - CIPRIANO B. MOTOS v. ROBERTO SOLER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12436 May 31, 1961 - LA CARLOTA SUGAR CENTRAL, ET AL. v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12460 May 31, 1961 - MARCOS ABIG, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12647 May 31, 1961 - AMERICAN MAIL LINE, ET AL. v. CITY OF BASILAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12654 May 31, 1961 - SANTIAGO MERCADO v. ELIZALDE & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12699 May 31, 1961 - BLUE BAR COCONUT COMPANY v. ISABELO S. HILARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12883 May 31, 1961 - PEDRO BASES, ET AL. v. FLAVIANO PILARTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13016 May 31, 1961 - AMELIA C. YUTUK v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-13135 May 31, 1961 - ERIBERTO DEL ESPIRITU v. DOMINGO Q. DAVID

  • G.R. No. L-13424 May 31, 1961 - BASILIA F. VDA. DE ZALDARRIAGA, ETC. v. PEDRO ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13438 May 31, 1961 - INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY v. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13685 May 31, 1961 - QUIRICO CAMUS v. CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13726 May 31, 1961 - LORENZO E. MACANSANTOS, ET AL. v. WENCESLAO L. FERNAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13786 May 31, 1961 - IN RE: LEE PA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-13830 May 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONIDO CADAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14009 May 31, 1961 - IN RE: SEGUNDO SY CEZAR v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14522 May 31, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MANUEL B. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-14604 May 31, 1961 - PEDRO TABOADA v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14810 May 31, 1961 - LAZARO BOOC v. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14862 May 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ANDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14863 May 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO ARIOJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14893 May 31, 1961 - ANGELINA ARANETA VDA. DE LIBOON v. LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-14917 May 31, 1961 - AURELIO P. REYES, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO ROMERO

  • G.R. No. L-14960 May 31, 1961 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CAROLINO MUNSAYAC

  • G.R. No. L-14996 May 31, 1961 - XERXES C. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-15164 May 31, 1961 - FEARNLEY & EGER, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15364 May 31, 1961 - VIRGINIA CLAREZA, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN A. ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15370 May 31, 1961 - EMILIO DABLEO v. LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15521 May 31, 1961 - MANILA JOCKEY CLUB INC. v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. L-15562 May 31, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ST. STEPHEN’S ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15589 May 31, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINO R. ARICHETA

  • G.R. No. L-15692 May 31, 1961 - ENGRACIA ALARCON v. JUAN ALARCON

  • G.R. No. L-15719 May 31, 1961 - MARCELO SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. PEDRO BELDEROL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15757 May 31, 1961 - ALBERTA DE PASION v. FLORENTINO DE PASION

  • G.R. Nos. L-15827 and 15828 May 31, 1961 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. ZIP VENETIAN BLIND, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15924 May 31, 1961 - UDE SOLIMAN v. ICDANG (BAGOBO), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15958 May 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15992 May 31, 1961 - PEDRO TY BELIZAR v. FLORENCIO BRAZAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16056 May 31, 1961 - LUZ BALLESTEROS, ET AL. v. OLIVA CAOILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16097 May 31, 1961 - LUIS ALMEDA v. ANASTACIA MANRILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16146 May 31, 1961 - ACTING DIRECTOR, ET AL. v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

  • G.R. Nos. L-16190 & L-16369 May 31, 1961 - LUCIO L. MAYOR, ET AL. v. RAYMUNDO VILLACETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16222 May 31, 1961 - JOSE H. MENDOZA v. ANDRES ALANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16477 May 31, 1961 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MARIANO MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-16507 May 31, 1961 - JESUS T. GESOLGON, ET AL. v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

  • G.R. No. L-16518 May 31, 1961 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16542 & 16543 May 31, 1961 - SEBASTIAN S. TOMACRUZ v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16598 May 31, 1961 - FRANCISCO JOSE v. JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16780 May 31, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO GUMAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16818 May 31, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO VILLEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-16927 May 31, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIA VDA. DE CALIWAN

  • G.R. No. L-17049 May 31, 1961 - PAULA RECARO v. NESTOR EMBISAN

  • G.R. No. L-17050 May 31, 1961 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17081 May 31, 1961 - JAIME HERNANDEZ v. DELFIN ALBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17252 and L-17276 May 31, 1961 - GORGONIO MIRANDA, ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-17277 May 31, 1961 - LUCIANO VALENCIA, ET AL. v. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17365 May 31, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. L. PASICOLAN