Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > May 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24173 May 23, 1968 - PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24173. May 23, 1968.]

PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent-Appellee.

Ross, Selph & Carrascoso for Petitioner-Appellant.

Solicitor General for Respondent-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; "TAXES" AND "IMPOSTS" DISTINGUISHED; "WHARFAGE DUES" NOT "TAXES." — In providing "that Congress . . . may not deprive the Supreme Court . . . of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse modify or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error . . . final judgments and decrees of inferior courts" in inter alia, "all cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto." and that "Congress may by law authorize the President . . . to fix tariff rates, impost or export quotas, and tonnage and wharfage dues," our Constitution distinguishes between taxes, on the one hand and "imposts" — that is to say tariff rates or duties imposed for the importation of goods — on the other. Similarly, the Constitution does not consider "wharfage dues" as part of tariff rates or custom duties.

2. COMMERCIAL LAW; TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE; WHARFAGE DUES COLLECTIBLE ON GOODS UNLOADED AT PRIVATE WHARVES. — This Court has already held that wharfage dues are collectible, under Sections 2801 and 2802 of the Tariff and Customs Code (Republic Act No. 1937) on articles imported or brought into the Philippines which are unloaded on private wharves, for the reason that when a vessel enters a harbor and lays anchor or moores in a port to load, unload or both, it derives benefit from port facilities provided and maintained by the Government; hence, they are in fairness made to contribute a share in said Government undertaking by payment of berthing charges and harbor fees. (Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs, L-22819, April 27, 1967.)

3. ID.; ID.; CUSTOM DUTIES; TAXES AND WHARFAGE CHARGES TREATED AS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE CONCEPTS. — The Tariff and Custom Code regards custom duties, taxes and wharfage charges as three (3) distinct and separate concepts. Custom duties are governed by Book I, Title I of said Code, under the headings "Tariff Law" and "Import Tariff" respectively, whereas wharfage dues are collectible pursuant to Book II thereof, Title VII under the caption "Fees and Charges Collectible by the Bureau of Customs." Moreover, wharfage fees are imposed to form a special fund known as Port Works Fund, while revenue derived from customs duties form part of the general funds of the Government. Finally, tariff rates or customs duties are prescribed only for goods imported into the Philippines, whereas wharfage fees are assessed against the cargo of a vessel engaged in the foreign trade, based on the quantity, weight or measure received and/or discharged from said vessel.

4. ID.; ID.; WHARFAGE DUES NOT COVERED BY TAX EXEMPTION UNDER R.A. 901. — The exemption prescribed in R.A. 901 is limited to internal revenue taxes which are directly payable in respect of a new and necessary industry. Assuming that palm oil and coconut fatty alcohol are necessary for petitioner’s industry, it is not indispensable therefor that said products be imported. Hence, the wharfage dues in question are not directly imposed upon said industry. At best, the wharfage dues in question are an indirect levy upon petitioner’s industry and hence, not covered by its exemption.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Appeal, by petitioner Procter & Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation, from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, affirming that of respondent Commissioner of Customs, which denied petitioner’s claim for refund of P1,434.00, paid as wharfage dues on three (3) shipments of palm oil and coconut fatty alcohol unloaded at its private wharf.

Two issues are raised in this appeal, namely: (1) whether wharfage dues are collectible, under Sections 2801 and 2802 of Republic Act No. 1937, on goods unloaded at private wharves; and (2) if the first issue is decided in the affirmative, whether said wharfage dues are covered by the tax exemption provided in Republic Act No. 901.

The first issue has already been settled in the affirmative in L- 22819, between the same parties, 1 under substantially identical facts. Speaking through Mr. Justice J.P. Bengzon, this Court held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At issue is whether or not Procter & Gamble is liable for the payment of wharfage dues imposed in Section 2802 of the Tariff and Customs Code on the two shipments of caustic soda which were not unloaded on a Government wharf.

"Section 2802 of the Tariff and Customs Code has for its origin Section 14 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909 which we quote hereunder:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘SEC. 14. That there shall be levied and collected upon all articles, goods, wares and merchandise except coal, lumber, creosoted, and other pressure treated materials as well as other minor forest products, cement, guano, natural rock asphalt, the minerals and ores of copper, lead, zinc, iron, and steel metals, refractory gold ores, and sugar molasses, the products of the Philippines, exported through ports of entry of the Philippines, or shipped therefrom to the United States or any of its possessions, a duty of one dollar per gross ton of one thousand kilos, as a charge for wharfage, irrespective of the port of destination or nationality of the exporting vessel. In the case of logs, or flitches twelve inches square or equivalent cross- sectional area, or over, a charge of thirty cents per cubic meter shall be collected.

‘All articles, goods, wares, or merchandise imported, exported, or shipped in transit for the use of the Government of the United States, or of that of the Philippines, shall be exempt from the charge prescribed in this section.’

Section 14 imposed wharfage dues only on exports and were held to be payable although the subject merchandise were loaded from a private wharf. In 1909 our legislators knew that there was no Government wharf existing and it was found safe to assume that the Government intended to collect wharfage fees, even without the use of Government owned wharves, in order to raise funds for the acquisition and construction of wharves throughout the islands.

"In 1955 Congress enacted Republic Act 1371, imposing in Section 3 thereof wharfage dues on imports and exports. We quote Section 3 hereunder:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘SEC 3. There shall be levied, collected and paid on all articles imported or brought into the Philippines, and on products of the Philippines, except coal, lumber, creosoted and other pressure treated materials as well as other minor forest products, cement, guano, natural rock asphalt, the minerals and ores of base metals (e.g., copper, lead, zinc, iron, chromite, manganese, magnesite and steel), and sugar molasses, exported from the Philippines a charge of two pesos per gross metric ton as a fee for wharfage: Provided, That in the case of logs, or flitches twelve inches square or equivalent cross-sectional area, or over, a charge of sixty centavos per cubic meter shall be collected. Provided, further, That such wharfage fee shall not be levied on articles imported or brought into the Philippines which are unloaded on private wharves.’

Interpreting Section 3, this Court stated in Commissioner of Customs v. Superior Gas & Equipment Co. that the intention of Congress was not to levy wharfage fee on merchandise unloaded at places other than Government wharves or without making use of pier facilities and the proviso exempting from the wharfage fee all such imported merchandise makes this intention all the more evident.

"Later, however, in 1957 Congress passed Republic Act 1937, otherwise known as the Tariff and Customs Code which in Section 2802 thereof provides for the payment of wharfage dues on imports and exports. Section 2802 states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘SEC. 2802. Schedule of Dues. — There shall be levied, collected and paid on all articles imported or brought into the Philippines, and on products of the Philippines except coal, lumber, creosoted and other pressure treated materials as well as other minor forest products, cement, guano, natural rock asphalt, the minerals and ores of base metals (e.g., copper, lead, zinc, iron, chromite, manganese, magnesite and steel), and sugar molasses, exported from the Philippines, a charge of two pesos per gross metric ton as a fee for wharfage: Provided, That in the case of logs, or flitches twelve inches square or equivalent cross-sectional area, or over, a charge of sixty centavos per cubic meter shall be collected.’

Section 2802 is an almost verbatim copy of Section 3 of Republic Act 1371 minus the proviso —

‘ . . . That such wharfage fee shall not be levied on articles imported or brought into the Philippines which are unloaded on private wharves.’

"Procter & Gamble maintains that the interpretation of wharfage dues in Commissioner of Customs v. Superior Gas & Equipment Co., supra, that wharfage dues are compensation on rental for the use of a wharf, and no wharfage dues shall be collected where no Government wharf used, shall be applied in this case because Section 2802 of the Tariff and Customs Code, the law applicable herein, was derived from Section 3 of Republic Act 1371. As a matter of fact, it adds, Section 2801 of the Tariff and Customs Code adopted the definition of ‘wharfage dues’ provided for in Section 1(b) of Republic Act 1371.

"On the other hand, the Commissioner of Customs and the Court of Tax Appeals are of the opinion that Section 2802 should be given an interpretation different from that enunciated in Commissioner of Customs v. Superior Gas & Equipment Co., supra, on Section 3 of Republic Act 1371 for the reason that Section 2802, unlike Section 3, does not provide for an exemption from wharfage dues on goods unloaded on private wharves. Counter to this argument, Procter & Gamble contends that the aforestated exemption clause is merely a surplusage and therefore its presence in or absence from the law will not alter the meaning of ‘wharfage dues’. It moreover avers that the Tariff and Customs Code, a codification of existing tariff and customs laws, is presumed to have incorporated pertinent laws without change and any modification introduced therein was merely to simplify the language of the law but not to change its meaning.

"It should be noted that the Tariff and Customs Code levies charges on the different activities of a vessel engaged in foreign trade. For coming to the Philippines from a foreign port or for going to a foreign port from the Philippines, one pays tonnage dues. For entrance into or departure from a port of entry, harbor fees are collected. Wharfage dues are assessed against the cargo discharged by a vessel engaged in foreign trade. Berthing charges are levied on a vessel coming or mooring within specified places or waters of a port.

"A vessel ordinarily enters a harbor and lays anchor or moors in a port to load, to unload or both. In doing so, the vessel derives benefit from port facilities provided and maintained by the Government. For this reason, they are in fairness made to contribute a share in said Government undertaking by payment of berthing charges and harbor fees. Similarly, cargoes discharged to a Philippine port from a vessel engaged in foreign trade derive benefit from port facilities provided and maintained by the Government; said cargoes should also share the cost of providing and keeping a safe port, in the form of wharfage dues. Accordingly, a vessel that anchors at Manila Bay to seek protection from a storm is not charged wharfage dues by the Bureau of Customs, although it may have to pay harbor fees and berthing charges. But when a vessel anchors at the Bay and discharges or unloads its cargo, wharfage dues are forthwith collected. For, as stated, said dues are assessed against the cargo discharged. This is clear from the provision of the law under which the assessment is based on the quantity, weight or measure of the cargo received by the importer and/or discharged by such vessel. And wharfage dues on the cargo are distinct from harbor fees or berthing charges on the vessel, so much so that different sections of the law cover them.

"Since in the present case, the vessels involved called on port to unload, as they in fact, did, some cargo, said cargo, having been unloaded amidst the safety afforded by the port, is chargeable with wharfage dues. Finally, wharfage dues partake of the nature of a tax which is collected by the Government to support its operation in relation to customs affairs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner herein has not adduced any reason, and we find none, to warrant a reversal or modification of the foregoing view, which is hereby reiterated.

As regards the second issue, Section 1 of Republic Act No. 901 reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any person, partnership, company or corporation who or which, subsequent to the approval of this Act (June 20, 1953), shall engage in a new and necessary industry shall be entitled to exemption until December thirty-one, nineteen hundred and fifty eight from payment of all taxes directly payable by such person, partnership, company or corporation in respect to said industry . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The issue hinges 2 on whether or not the phrase "all taxes," as used in the above provision, embraces "wharfage dues." Petitioner maintains that it does, upon the theory that, according to American decisions, the word "tax" when used alone includes customs levies or import entries, and that "customs" are "taxes levied upon goods or merchandise imported or exported" or "the duties, toll, tribute or tariff payable upon merchandise imported or exported." 3 The views set forth in said decisions and authorities are not, however, controlling in the Philippines, the laws of which must necessarily be construed in accordance with the intent of its own makers, as such intent may be deduced from the language of each law and the context of other local legislation related thereto.

Our Constitution provides that "the Congress . . . may not deprive the Supreme Court . . . of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error . . . final judgments and decrees of inferior courts" in, inter alia, "all cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto," 4 and that "Congress may be law authorize the President . . . to fix . . . tariff rates, import or export quotas, and tonnage and wharfage dues." 5 Thus, our fundamental law distinguishes between taxes, on the one hand, and "imposts" — that is to say, tariff rates or duties imposed for the importation of goods — on the other. Similarly, the Constitution does not consider "wharfage dues" as part of "tariff rates" or customs duties.

And neither does our Tariff and Customs Code. 6 Customs duties are governed by Book I, Title I, of said Code, under the headings "tariff law" and "import Tariff," respectively, whereas wharfage dues are collectible pursuant to Book II thereof, Title VII of said book, under the caption "Fees and Charges Collectible by the Bureau of Customs." Indeed, said Code regards customs duties, taxes and wharfage charges as three (3) distinct and separate concepts. For instance, Section 1604 thereof provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Treatment of fractions in the liquidation. — In determining the total amount of duties, taxes, surcharges, wharfage and/or other charges to be paid on entries, a fraction of a peso less than fifty centavos shall be disregarded, and a fraction of a peso amounting to fifty centavos or more shall be considered as one peso. In case of overpayment or underpayment of duties, taxes, surcharges, wharfage and/or other charges paid on entries, where the amount involved is less than five pesos, no refund or collection shall be made."cralaw virtua1aw library

Moreover, wharfage dues are charged, not for the use of any wharf. Like "harbor fees, berthing charge, storage charges and the net income from the share of arrastre charges," wharfage fees are imposed to

". . . form a special fund to be known as ‘Port Works Fund,’ . . . for the study, investigation, field surveys, research, planning, development, construction, improvement, maintenance and repair of ports, ports facilities and port areas, warehouses, sheds and offices, buoys, lighthouses and other aides to navigation including the purchase, maintenance, rental charges and replacement of necessary equipment . . . 7

Upon the other hand, revenue derived from customs duties form part of the general funds of the Government.

Again, tariff rates or customs duties are prescribed only for goods imported into the Philippines, whereas wharfage fees are "assessed against the cargo of a vessel engaged in the foreign trade, based on the quantity, weight or measure received and/or discharged from said vessel." 8 In fact, even in connection with "taxes," as distinguished from customs duties or charges for the importation of foreign goods, this Court declared, in Plywood Industries, Inc. v. Aranas, 9 that the exemption prescribed in Republic Act No. 901, is limited a) to "internal revenue" taxes b) which are "directly payable" in respect of a new and necessary industry. In that case it was held that a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of plywood panels and veneer sheets was not exempt from the payment of forest charges for logs cut from a forest concession, even though said logs were admittedly necessary for the manufacture of plywood panels and veneer sheets. We then reiterated our view in Collector of Internal Revenue v. Lacson, 10 to the effect that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The exemption provided for in Republic Act. No. 901 is limited to those taxes directly payable by the manufacturer in respect to the manufacture of veneer and plywood. Forest charges arising from the operation of a forest concession for the purpose of obtaining lumber used in the manufacture of the plywood and veneer do not come within the purview of the exemption. While logs and lumber are necessary for the manufacture of plywood, the operation of the forest concession to obtain the required lumber is not indispensable. The manufacturer can get his supply from the other forest concessionaires who are liable for forest charges, although it would be more profitable for it to operate its own lumber mills and have its own forest concession."cralaw virtua1aw library

Similarly, assuming that palm oil and coconut fatty alcohol are necessary for petitioner’s industry, it is not indispensable therefor that said products be imported. Hence, the wharfage dues in question are not directly imposed upon said industry. Like the forest charges involved in the Plywood Industries case, the wharfage dues in question are, at best, an indirect levy upon petitioner’s industry, and, hence, not covered by its exemption. At any rate, it is obvious that wharfage dues are not "internal revenue" taxes.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner herein.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. On April 27, 1967.

2. On the assumption, made by the Commissioner of Customs, that petitioner has been granted tax exemption under the provisions of Republic Act No. 901.

3. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 81 L. ed., 1279; General Mut. Ins. Co. v. U.S., 119 F. Supp., 353; and In re Rosenthal Bros., 235 F. 315.

4. Article VIII, Sec. 2[2], Const. of the Phil.

5. Article VI, Section 22[2] of the Constitution.

6. Republic Act No. 1937.

7. As provided in Act No. 3592, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 130 and Republic Acts Nos. 1216 and 2695.

8. Section 2801 of Rep. Act No. 1937.

9. L-16466, March 31, 1964.

10. L-12945, April 29, 1960, 58 Off. Gaz. 889.




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-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25668 May 2, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN JUGILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22005 May 3, 1968 - JESUSA LACSON VDA. DE ARROYO, ET AL. v. EL BEATERIO DEL SANTISSIMO ROSARIO DE MOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26065 May 3, 1968 - GERONIMO P. ZALDIVAR v. NUMERIANO ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21743 May 4, 1968 - FEDERICO CAÑETE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23458 May 4, 1968 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. NATIONAL SHIPYARDS EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24264 May 4, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19829 May 4, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO COKENG

  • G.R. No. L-24538 May 4, 1968 - IN RE: PONCIANO B. FLORES v. ROSALINA SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 May 7, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25345 May 13, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO GARCELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24247 May 13, 1968 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ACTG. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-21583 and L-21591-92 May 20, 1968 - DANIEL BULANTE v. CHU LIANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23758 May 20, 1968 - MAXIMINA OYOD DE GARCES, ET AL. v. ESMERALDA BROCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24983 May 20, 1968 - FLORENTINO GENATO, ET AL. v. FELISA GENATO DE LORENZO

  • G.R. No. L-24560 May 21, 1968 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20952 May 22, 1968 - IN RE: CHUA UAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22250 May 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULOGIO BALAO

  • G.R. No. L-22320 May 22, 1968 - MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ, ET AL. v. GREGORIO LANTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23640 May 22, 1968 - REMEDIOS MALUPA VDA. DE LAYAG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24192 May 22, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25308 May 22, 1968 - ELISEO EGUIA DUMAPIG v. GERONIMO R. MARAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25819 May 22, 1968 - VITALIANO B. VALDES v. LUCIO C. GUTIERREZ, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27252 May 22, 1968 - FELIPE IMPERIAL v. ROMAN CATHOLIC OF ARCHBISHOP OF CACERES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20891 May 23, 1968 - TOMAS B. TADEO v. ROMULO VISPERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24665 May 23, 1968 - TIBURCIO ALCOBER, ET AL. v. HONORATO GARCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24805 May 23, 1968 - IN RE: YAP PUEY ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25165 May 23, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REFUGIO DEVARAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23017 May 23, 1968 - LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DEL DANAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24173 May 23, 1968 - PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24410 May 23, 1968 - BERNARDA NAZAL v. FELICIANO BELMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22347 May 27, 1968 - FILIPINAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22611 May 27, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22943 May 27, 1968 - IN RE: TEH SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23056 May 27, 1968 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24280 May 27, 1968 - EUNARIA B. VDA. DE GUILAS, ET AL. v. ANANIAS DAVID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24564 May 27, 1968 - AMADO L. MENDOZA v. RODRIGUEZ & COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24581 May 27, 1968 - MIGUEL PEREZ RUBIO v. SAMUEL REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24772 May 27, 1968 - RUPERTO G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. FlLIPINAS INVESTMENT & FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-24800 May 27, 1968 - IN RE: PIO NERIA v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-26077 May 27, 1968 - SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26797 May 27, 1968 - REYNALDO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. ARTURO JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-27598 May 27, 1968 - ELISA MEDINA CUE v. PILAR DOLLA

  • G.R. No. L-24288 May 28, 1968 - LEONOR MANUEL CASTILLO UDAN v. QUIRICO C. AMON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24484 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON C. NARCISO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25942 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-25997 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICA ANINO

  • G.R. No. L-27951 May 28, 1968 - PABLO C. SANIDAD v. CRESCENCIANO L. SAQUING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28955 May 28, 1968 - USO DAN AGUAM v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19867 May 29, 1968 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CALSONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20322 May 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22030 May 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARIO ROLDAN

  • G.R. No. L-22426 May 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PELAGIO CONDEMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23021 May 29, 1968 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. MARIANO RIVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24490 May 29, 1968 - CIRIACO LANDA v. FRANCISCO TOBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24664 May 29, 1968 - CORAZON ALEGRE, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24677 May 29, 1968 - YAP TECK SUY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25551 May 29, 1968 - IN RE: CHAN DE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26364 May 29, 1968 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ET AL.