Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > May 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2384 November 9, 1906 - In re DOMINADOR GOMEZ

006 Phil 647:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 2384. November 9, 1906. ]

In re DOMINADOR GOMEZ.

Palma, Gerona & Mercado, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CONTEMPT; INTERFERING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF RECEIVER. — Receivers when duly appointed are officers of the court. Property in their possession is in the possession of the court. Courts will not permit interference with the possession of a receiver and will scrutinize carefully the acts of persons interested, who in any way interfere with such possession or in any way impede the administration of such property by receivers. Any person who is guilty of improper conduct, which tends directly or indirectly to impede or defeat the administration of justice, is in contempt and may be punished by the courts.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


On the 1st day of August, 1903, W. J. Rohde, then one of the judges of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, sentenced the defendant, Dominador Gomez, to be imprisoned for the period of six months for contempt. From the decision the defendant appealed to this court.

The defendant and appellant presented his brief upon the 17th day of October, 1905. The Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands filed his reply brief of the 24th day of August, 1906. The cause was submitted to this court without argument on the 2d day of October, 1906.

The Insular Government, in the early part of the year 1903, commenced an action against Dominador Gomez, president, Luis Perry, and the other members of the association known as "Union Obera Democratica de Filipinas," for the purpose of dissolving said association, to sell the property of the same, collect its credits, and to distribute the proceeds among the persons who were entitled to the same, under section 5 and 6 of Act No. 701 of the Philippine Commission.

On the 29th of May, 1903, John C. Sweeney, then judge of the Court of First Instance of the city Manila, after hearing the evidence presented in that cause and acting under the provisions of said Act No. 701, appointed Frank A. Branagan, Insular Treasurer of the Philippine Archipelago, administrator or agent of the said association "Union Obera Democratica de Filipinas" in order that he might take charge of all the property, books, and documents of said association and liquidate the business of the same. On the same day the same judge issued an order directed to the said Dominador Gomez as president, and the other members of the said association, their agents, and functionaries, to desist from collecting and disposing of the funds of the said association. The defendant and the other members of the association were given due notice of this order.

On the 16th day of June, 1903, the foregoing order was amplified, by the terms of which Dominador Gomez and the other members of said association were ordered to desist from continuing, directing, promoting, or forming a part of the said association "Union Democratica de Filipinas" until a new order of the court.

On the 31st day of July, 1903, Gregorio Araneta, representing the plaintiff, presented to the Court of First Instance of the city of the Manila, an affidavit in which it was made to appear that, notwithstanding the fact that the said Frank A. Branagan, in compliance with the order of the court, had taken charge of all of the property of said association, including the newspaper "Los Obreros," for the liquidation of the same, defendant, Dominador Gomez, as president of the said "Union Obrera Democratica de Filipinas," in violation of the orders of the court, had renewed the publication of the said newspapers and had put into circulation thousands of copies of the same as a continuation of "Los Obreros," which was formerly published as the property of the "Union Obrera Democratica de Filipinas," and requested the court to order the immediate appearance of the said Gomez to show why he should not be punished for contempt.

On the same day W. J. Rohde, judge of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, issued an order in compliance with the foregoing request, directing the defendant to appear before him as such judge, for the purpose of showing reasons why he should not be punished for contempt for having published the newspaper called "Los Obreros" in violation of the orders of the court.

On the same day of defendant appeared before the court and in writing stated the following reasons why he should not be punished for contempt.

First. That he should not be punished for contempt for violating the order of the court in the publication of the newspaper "Los Obreros" because the court in neither of its orders had prohibited the publication of the same.

Second. The defendant was not be punished for contempt for the order of the court in the publication of the newspaper "Los Obreros" for the reason that, even supposing that the court had prohibited the publication of the same as the organ of the "Union Obrera Democratico de Filipinas," the new newspaper is distinct from the former and is not the organ of the "Union Obrera Democratica de Filipinas" and on the contrary was the property of one Pedro de Jesus.

Third. The defendant was not guilty of contempt of the order of the court for the reason, even supposing that the new newspaper "Los Obreros" was a continuation of "Los Obreros," the organ of the "Union Obrera Democratica de Filipinas," the defendant is simply a salaried employee of the newspaper and in way an official or member of the "Union Obrera Democratica de Filipinas."cralaw virtua1aw library

The said Attorney-General denied all of these allegations and gave reasons why the defendant was guilty of contempt of the order of the court and asked that the defendant be punished in accordance with the law.

The defendant offered to present proof in support of his allegations, especially to support the allegation with reference to the ownership of the new newspaper. The court denied the defendant the right to present proof supporting his allegations relating to the ownership of the said newspaper, giving as his reason for such denial that it was not important in the present case to know who was the owner of the said newspaper. Against this ruling of the court the defendant excepted.

After hearing the arguments of the parties, the court sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned for a period of six months, basing his conclusions upon the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That upon the 29th day of May, 1903, the judge of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila made an order appointing Frank A. Branagan, Insular Treasurer of the Philippine Islands, as administrator or agent of the association called "Union Obrera Democratica de Filipinas," to take charge of all the property and documents of said association, and to liquidate the business of the same, and ordering the defendant and other functionaries, agents, etc., of said association to discontinue collecting and disposing of the funds of the same and notifying the association, the committees, functionaries, agents, and collectors of the existence of said order of the court, ordering them to cease from collecting any sum for the association or to dispose of the same.

Second. That on the 6th day of June, 1903, the court amplified the foregoing order and ordered the defendant to desist from continuing, directing, promoting, and forming a part of the said association "Union Obrera Democratica de Filipinas," until a new order of the court.

Third. That the newspaper "Los Obreros" formed a part of the business and property of the "Union Obrera Democratica de Filipinas," according to the by-laws of the said association, which, as well as the other property of the said association, had been put into hands of the said Branagan as administrator or agent of the said association; that the said Branagan had accepted such appointment and had taken charge of the said property which suspended the publication of the said newspaper "Los Obreros."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defendant, Dominador Gomez, admitted his cooperation in the publication of the newspaper "Los Obreros" on the 30th of July, 1903, but insisted that he had not been guilty of contempt of the order of the court, for the reason that the newspapers "Los Obreros" of the second "epoch" was not his property, but the property of a third person and that he was simply the director of the said newspaper.

The defendant and appellant alleges that the lower court committed an error in not permitting him to present proof for the purpose of showing that the newspaper "Los Obreros" was not the newspapers "Los Obreros" the organ of the said association "Union Obrera Democratica de Filipinas." The essence of the charge against the defendant for contempt was that he had published "Los Obreros" in defiance of the order of the court appointing the receiver, thereby interfering with the possession of the property of the said association which had been placed in the hands of the receiver, and thereby impeding and interfering with the liquidation of the assets of said association. The fact that he was publishing it is an employee of a third person or that he was publishing "Los Obreros" as the property of a third person we regard as of no importance, in the face of fact that he admitted the essential parts of the allegations constituting contempt.

While section 235 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions gives the defendant the right when he is charged with contempt in certain cases to introduce proof relating to the acts which constitute the contempt, yet when he admits the acts which is themselves constitute the contempt, he can not complain if the courts refuse him the right to introduce proof upon questions which do not affect the question of contempt.

The newspaper "Los Obreros," according to the rules of the said association, was the organ of the said association and therefore a part of the property of said association, and any use of this property on the part of the defendant after the appointment of the said receiver and during the existence of such receivership was an interference with the possession of such receiver and therefore in effect in violation of the orders of the court. When the court appointed the receiver and ordered him to take possession of the property, of such association and he had so taken possession of such property, it was not necessary for the court to continue in his order and say that such possession must not be interfered with. The courts will not permit an interference with the possession of the property of a receiver, and any act which directly or indirectly, by the third person, impedes or prejudices the administration of such property on the part of the receiver is in direct opposition to the order of the court and such person is guilty of contempt.

Suppose the defendant, instead of using the newspaper "Los Obreros," the organ of the society, as an employee of itself in his effort to organize or continue another association, or any for other purpose, would any sound-minded person for a moment believe that the defendant was not thereby attempting directly to defeat the orders of the court? There is no difference in effect between the case last supposed and the use of the newspaper, the organ of the society.

Any person who is guilty of any improper conduct which tends directly or indirectly to impede or defeat the administration of justice is in contempt and may be punished by the courts. The defendants, as director of the newspaper "Los Obreros," dated the 30th day of July, 1903, used as the title of the said publication, the same title used by the said association as the title of its organ "Los Obreros," and this fact of itself is sufficient to show that the defendant willfully and maliciously attempted to impede and defeat the administration of the property of said association on the part of the receiver. If, however, there should be any doubt remaining in the mind of any person of the intention of the defendant in using the title of the organ of said association in his publication of July 30 to defeat the order of the court, the following which was published upon the second page of the first issue of said publication would seem to be sufficient to show, beyond peradventure of doubt, that this was the real purpose:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"To the press:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Although we have not said "good-bye" to our esteemed colleagues, but simply "Until I see you again," we do not wish to deprive ourselves of the pleasure of greeting them as though we had not withdrawn from such difficult and honorable work for two months. We are not going to treat in vain of the past when the present is so difficult and the future so uncertain. We enter the fight again with greater vigor than ever, our motto being "Love for our country and fulfillment of duty." To our brave colleagues who aided us we send an affectionate embrace; to those who were indifferent, our respect, and to those who attacked us so bitterly to the extent of disgracing the august robe of the newspaper man, our absolute forgiveness, since we all, without distinction, should sacrifice ourselves for the prosperity of the Philippines and the welfare of all foreigners, as well as natives, who live under its beautiful sky."cralaw virtua1aw library

These quoted statements, taken together with the title "Los Obreros," show clearly that the defendant himself believe that he was continuing the publication of the organ of the said association and that the phrase "second epoch" was a mere subterfuge, by which he attempted to evade the orders of the court and defeat the administration of the assets of the said association by the receiver. Courts will not permit parties by such subterfuges to defeat their orders.

Receivers when duly appointed are officers of the courts. Property in their possession is in the possession of the court. Courts will not permit interference with the possession of a receiver and will scrutinize carefully the acts of person interested which in any way interfere with such possession or in any way impede the administration of such property by the receiver.

In the case In re Woven Tape Skirt Company (High on Receivers, 3d ed., sec. 174 (a); 12 Hun., N. Y., 11) the court made an order, dissolving a corporation which had been vested with the exclusive right to manufacture certain articles under letters patent, and appointed a receiver to take possession of the property and assets of said corporation. After the appointment of said receiver, a former officer of the corporation obtained a license from the patentee and engaged in the business of manufacturing the same article, the exclusive right to manufacture which had been vested in the said corporation. The court held that the exclusive right which the said corporation had to manufacture said article, upon the appointment of a receiver, passed to the said receiver and that the manufacture of said article thereafter by a former office of the corporation under a license from the patentee was an interference with the possession and rights of the receiver and such officer was therefore guilty of contempt. This case is exactly analogous to the one which we are now deciding.

In the case of Richards v. The People (81 Ill., 551), Richards, after the court had appointed a receiver for the I. B. & W. Rwy. Co., brought an action against said company in another court to recover a sum of money due him. This fact was brought to the attention of the court which had appointed the receiver and Richards was cited to appear and show why he should not be punished for interference with the property in the hands of the receiver. After hearing the statements of the said Richards, the court found him guilty of contempt and sentenced him to be imprisoned and to pay a fine. From this decision the defendant appealed to the supreme court of the State of Illinois. The supreme court held —

"That he was attempting to deprive the receiver of credits which he (the receiver) and he only was lawfully entitled, and hence was directly interfering with and impending the court in its administration of the estate over which it had appointed its receiver."cralaw virtua1aw library

To the same effect may be cited the following cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Angel v. Smith, 9 Vese Jr. (Common Law Report), 335; Ex parte Cochrane, Law Reports, 20 Equity, 282; Vermount, etc., Railway Co. v. Vermont Central Company, 46 Vt., 792.

The doctrines hereinbefore set out might be further supported by citations from the jurisprudence of almost every civilized nation.

The judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed with costs, and Dominador Gomez is hereby sentenced to be imprisoned in the public carcel of Bilibid for a period of six months.

After the expiration of ten days from the date of judgment let the cause be remanded to the lower court for proper procedure. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.




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-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1298 May 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SINGUIMUTO

    004 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 2257 May 5, 1906 - CHANG HANG LING v. CITY OF MANILA

    006 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. 2315 May 5, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO GANDOLE

    006 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. 2696 May 5, 1906 - SIXTO TIMBOL Y MANALO v. JANUARIA MANALO

    006 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 2698 May 5, 1906 - J. J. PETERSON v. CHARLES P. NEWBERRY

    006 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 2790 May 5, 1906 - CIRIACA MILLAN v. FLORENCIA MILLAN

    006 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 2801 May 5, 1906 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO v. MARIANO LIM

    006 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 3080 May 5, 1906 - NARCISO CABANTAG v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    006 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 1599 June 1, 1906 - CITY OF THE MANILA v. LEONARDA SALGADO

    006 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 1600 June 1, 1906 - PHILIPPINE SHIPPING CO. v. FRANCISCO GARCIA VERGARA

    006 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 1748 June 1, 1906 - BISHOP OF CEBU v. MARIANO MANGARON

    006 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. 2726 June 1, 1906 - JUAN SANZ Y SANZ v. VICENTE LAVIN

    006 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. 2517 June 2, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. R. W. ALMOND

    006 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 2782 June 4, 1906 - FRANCISCO GONZALEZ v. INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION

    006 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 2355 July 11, 1906 - E.B. MERCHANT v. INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION

    006 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 2553 July 13, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VALENTIN MARQUEZ

    006 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 2626 July 13, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL QUERIJERO

    006 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. 2468 July 16, 1906 - MAGDALENA CANSINO v. GERVASIO VALDEZ

    006 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. 2080 July 18, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MIGUEL A. SOLER

    006 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 2280 July 18, 1906 - FELIX MELLIZA v. W.H. MITCHELL

    006 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. 995 July 25, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO LUCINARIO

    006 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 2448 July 25, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SIXTO MERCADO

    006 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. 2609 July 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER

    006 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 2699 July 31, 1906 - FRANCISCA SIMON v. CLAUDIA CASTRO

    006 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 2705 July 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ALBERTO GONZALEZ

    006 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 2642 July 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FABIANA MANLALANG

    006 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-2664 August 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CELESTINA CAÑETA

    006 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-3007 August 3, 1906 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    006 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 2415 August 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JAMES W. WALSH

    006 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. 2688 August 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MARCIANO ORUGA

    006 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 3018 August 7, 1906 - HIGINIO FRANCISCO YUNTI v. CHINAMAN DY-YCO

    006 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 3430 August 7, 1906 - ROCHA & CO. v. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    006 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. 2535 August 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ABAD

    006 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 2723 August 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO MANALO

    006 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-2926 August 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO AGALUDUD

    008 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 2549 August 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EMETERIO DACANAY

    006 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 2741 August 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO LEAÑO

    006 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 2891 August 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EPIFANIO MAMINTUD

    006 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 2358 August 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANG KAN KO

    006 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 2750 August 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO ALDOS

    006 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. 2752 August 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENTINO SAYSON

    006 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 2510 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. LAUREANO FLORES

    006 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 2550 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO VENTOSA

    006 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 2658 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ROSA ALCANTARA

    006 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. 2714 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO MALLANAO

    006 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 2732 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. F. W. WEBSTER

    006 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 2737 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO BROCE

    006 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 2785 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CATAJAY

    006 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 2768 August 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NAZARIO VALLESTEROS

    006 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 2806 August 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BALBINO MORALES

    006 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. 2173 August 30, 1906 - MANILA NAVIGATION CO. v. JOSE M. QUINTERO

    006 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 2736 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GINER

    006 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 2767 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. GORGONIO DE LOS SANTOS

    006 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 2821 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO ANASTASIO

    006 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 2844 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SAMUEL SAULO

    006 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 2853 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MELECIO FLORES

    006 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 2537 September 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SERAPIO SISON

    006 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 3463 September 5, 1906 - JUAN FAJARDO v. JULIO LLORENTE

    006 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 2850 September 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO VERGARA

    006 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 3500 September 7, 1906 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. J.M. QUINTERO

    006 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 3045 September 8, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. TIBURCIO ZABALA

    006 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 3046 September 8, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. DAVID FRANK

    006 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 2655 September 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MODESTO ANGELES

    006 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. 2794 September 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CLARO PAGUIO

    006 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 2815 September 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BRIGIDO SALVADOR

    006 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 2867 September 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN REYES

    006 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 3000 September 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MONTES

    006 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 2433 September 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. DEOGRACIAS BUENAVENTURA

    006 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 2949 September 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO DE OCAMPO

    006 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 2829 September 19, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PIO CASTILLO

    006 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 2772 September 21, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. LOUIS A. UNSELT

    006 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 2865 September 21, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO ORUGA

    006 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 1771 September 22, 1906 - MARTIN JALANDONI v. LIZARRAGA HERMANOS

    006 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 1305 September 24, 1906 - RAMON SANTOS v. E. FINLEY JOHNSON

    006 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 2420 September 24, 1906 - MARTIN CASALLA v. EMETERIO ENAGE

    006 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 2886 October 2, 1906 - VALENTIN REYES v. JUANA TANCHIATCO

    006 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 2939 October 2, 1906 - JAIME SERRA v. GO-HUNA

    006 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 3038 October 2, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CENON ANGELES

    006 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 2875 October 3, 1906 - ELENA JAVIER v. CEFERINO SUICO

    006 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 2977 October 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JERRY CLAUCK

    006 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 2919 October 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. LUCAS KANLEON

    006 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 3242 October 17, 1906 - DANIEL TANCHOCO v. SIMPLICIO SUAREZ

    006 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. 2812 October 18, 1906 - LONGINOS JAVIER v. SEGUNDO JAVIER

    006 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 2947 October 19, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE RUIZ

    006 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 2888 October 23, 1906 - HUNG-MAN-YOC v. KIENG-CHIONG-SENG

    006 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 2900 October 23, 1906 - MAXIMO CORTES v. MANILA JOCKEY CLUB

    006 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 2589 October 24, 1906 - MARIANO DEVESA v. ALEJANDRO MONTELIBANO

    006 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 2999 October 25, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO VILLOS

    006 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 1382 October 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. QUE BING

    006 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. 2278 October 26, 1906 - SUA TICO v. CARLOS GEMORA

    006 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 2902 October 26, 1906 - NATALIA CATINDIG v. FRANCISCO CATINDIG

    006 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 2934 October 26, 1906 - JUAN MOLINA v. LA ELECTRICISTA

    006 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 3547 October 26, 1906 - LORENZA PAEZ v. JOSE BERENGUER

    006 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 1664 October 27, 1906 - ESTEBAN ARABES v. DIEGO URIAN

    006 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 2776 October 27, 1906 - BRUNO REMENTERIA v. LOPE DE LARA

    006 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 2685 October 29, 1906 - C. M. COTHERMAN v. CU PONGCO

    006 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 2944 October 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FILOMENO BACARRISAS

    006 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 3291 October 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. POLICARPIO TALBANOS

    006 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 2024 October 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. W. W. RICHARDS

    006 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 2486 October 30, 1906 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. LAMBERTO AVELLANO

    006 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 2822 October 30, 1906 - VALENTIN SANTOS v. LEONIZA YTURRALDE

    006 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 2127 November 1, 1906 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 2146 November 1, 1906 - MANUEL TESTAGORDA FIGUERAS v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 2970 November 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CRAME

    006 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. 2189 November 3, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BAUTISTA

    006 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. 2791 November 5, 1906 - CATALINO NICOLAS v. MARIA JOSE

    006 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 1794 November 6, 1906 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    006 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 1935 November 6, 1906 - CLARA ALFONSO BUENAVENTURA v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 2731 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHAUNCEY MCGOVERN

    006 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 2783 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO PARCON

    006 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 3294 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SERRANO

    006 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 2686 November 8, 1906 - C. HEINSZEN & CO. v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO.

    006 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 3082 November 8, 1906 - RAMONA TARROSA v. P. A. PEARSON

    006 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 2384 November 9, 1906 - In re DOMINADOR GOMEZ

    006 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. 2903 November 9, 1906 - ESTEFANIA VILLAR v. CITY OF MANILA

    006 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 1326 November 10, 1906 - FELIX FANLO AZNAR v. RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ

    006 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. 2556 November 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SOFIO OPINION

    006 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 2968 November 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANGELO VINCO

    006 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 3309 November 10, 1906 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. A. A. MONTAGNE

    006 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 3270 November 12, 1906 - LUISA RAMOS v. CARLOS VARANDA

    006 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 2095 November 13, 1906 - MARIA ADELA v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE

    006 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 3182 November 13, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE SOLIS

    006 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 2101 November 15, 1906 - ELEANOR ERICA STRONG v. FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE

    006 Phil 680

  • G.R. No. 2892 November 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX ORTEGA

    006 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. L-2834 November 21, 1906 - JUAN AZARRAGA v. ANDREA CORTES

    009 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 2394 November 22, 1906 - KER & CO. v. A. R. CAUDEN

    006 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 3106 November 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE PAUA

    006 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 3387 November 22, 1906 - T. SUGO v. GEORGE GREEN

    006 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. 3388 November 22, 1906 - TATSUSABURO YEGAWA v. GEORGE GREEN

    006 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2563 November 23, 1906 - RICARDO NOLAN v. ANTONIO SALAS

    007 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-2897 November 23, 1906 - PEDRO MAGUYON v. MARCELINO AGRA

    007 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2958 November 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BRAULIO TUPULAR

    007 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-3025 November 23, 1906 - SI-BOCO v. YAP TENG

    007 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-3393 November 23, 1906 - CLEMENTE GOCHUICO v. MANUEL OCAMPO

    007 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-2017 November 24, 1906 - MUNICIPALITY OF OAS v. BARTOLOME ROA

    007 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. L-2408 November 24, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSEPH J. CAPURRO, ET AL.

    007 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-2644 November 24, 1906 - DENNIS J. DOUGHERTY v. JOSE EVANGELISTA

    007 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. L-2832 November 24, 1906 - REV. JORGE BARLIN v. P. VICENTE RAMIREZ

    007 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-2842 November 24, 1906 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL. v. LEONARDO SANTOS

    007 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-2697 November 27, 1906 - JUSTIANO MENDIOLA v. CLAUDIA MENDIOLA

    007 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. L-2835 November 27, 1906 - FELICIANO ALFONSO v. RAMON LAGDAMEO

    007 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-2498 November 28, 1906 - MARCELO TIGLAO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    007 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2914 November 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO GAVIRA

    007 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2638 November 30, 1906 - AGATONA TUASON v. IGNACIA USON

    007 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-3378 November 30, 1906 - JOSE CASTAÑO v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER

    007 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. L-2242 December 1, 1906 - HOUSTON B. PAROT v. CARLOS GEMORA

    007 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-2530 December 3, 1906 - ORDER OF DOMINICANS v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    007 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-2718 December 4, 1906 - JOSE EMETERIO GUEVARA v. HIPOLITO DE OCAMPO

    007 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 2800 December 4, 1906 - FRANK S. BOURNS v. D.M. CARMAN ET AL.

    007 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-2923 December 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO PALMADRES

    007 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-3009 December 4, 1906 - FELICIDAD BUSTAMANTE v. CRISTOBAL BUSTAMANTE

    007 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3534 December 4, 1906 - TO GUIOC-CO v. LORENZO DEL ROSARIO

    007 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2671 December 5, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO POBLETE

    007 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. L-2704 December 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FEDERICO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-1952 December 6, 1906 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    007 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906 - MATEO CARIÑO v. TINSULAR GOVERNMENT

    007 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-2921 December 6, 1906 - LUCAS GONZALEZ v. ROSENDO DEL ROSARIO

    007 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-3022 December 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SEBASTIAN LOZANO

    007 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3429 December 6, 1906 - CASTLE BROS. v. GO-JUNO

    007 Phil 144

  • G.R. Nos. L-2472 & 2473 December 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CORTES

    007 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2803 December 7, 1906 - DAMASA ALCALA v. FRANCISCO SALGADO

    007 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-2890 December 7, 1906 - VALENTINA PALMA v. JORGE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    007 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. L-2929 December 7, 1906 - FAUSTA BATARRA v. FRANCISCO MARCOS

    007 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. L-3006 December 7, 1906 - JOSE GONZALEZ v. AGUSTIN BAÑES

    007 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. L-3062 December 7, 1906 - MARIA MAGALLANES v. TEODORA CAÑETA

    007 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-3078 December 7, 1906 - FERNANDO PEREZ v. JUAN GARCIA BOSQUE

    007 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3495 December 7, 1906 - JAMES J. RAFFERTY v. JUDGE OF THE CFI FOR THE PROV. OF CEBU, ET AL.

    007 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2777 December 10, 1906 - MARIA CASAL v. EMILIO MORETA

    007 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-2532 December 11, 1906 - IN RE MACARIO ADRIOATICO

    007 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-2787 December 11, 1906 - CELSO DAYRIT v. GIL GONZALEZ

    007 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-3010 December 11, 1906 - JULIAN TUBUCON v. PETRONA DALISAY

    007 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-3050 December 11, 1906 - LUIS SANTOS v. SILVESTRE DILAG

    007 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-3117 December 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO ADRIATICO

    007 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-2766 December 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PAULO CABAMNGAN

    007 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-3094 December 12, 1906 - FRED SPARREVOHN v. EMIL M. BACHRACH

    007 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. L-2828 December 14, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SOLIS

    007 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-3204 December 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FLAVIANO SALANATIN

    007 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2855 December 19, 1906 - FLEMING, ET AL. v. LORCHA "NUESTRA SRA. DEL CARMEN

    007 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-2757 December 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN LIM ALAN

    007 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-2908 December 20, 1906 - ANTONIO TORRES Y ROXAS, ET AL. v. RAMON B. GENATO (Intervenor)

    007 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. L-3119 December 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO CAGAOAAN

    007 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-3093 December 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO MANABAT

    007 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2541 December 26, 1906 - IGNACIO ICAZA v. RICARDO FLORES

    007 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. L-1999 December 27, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MANUEL

    007 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. L-2765 December 27, 1906 - JOSE DOLIENDO v. DOMINGO BIARNESA

    007 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-3249 December 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FLOR MATA

    007 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. L-2395 December 29, 1906 - DOROTEO CORTES v. DY-JIA AND DY-CHUANDING

    007 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-2825 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PAUL A. WEEMS

    007 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-2916 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE OROSA

    007 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-2966 December 29, 1906 - NICOLAS CONCEPCION TAN TACO v. VICENTE GAY

    007 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-3120 December 29, 1906 - BRYAN v. AMERICAN BANK

    007 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-3466 December 29, 1906 - MEYER HERMAN v. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    007 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 1298 May 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SINGUIMUTO

    004 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 2257 May 5, 1906 - CHANG HANG LING v. CITY OF MANILA

    006 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. 2315 May 5, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO GANDOLE

    006 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. 2696 May 5, 1906 - SIXTO TIMBOL Y MANALO v. JANUARIA MANALO

    006 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 2698 May 5, 1906 - J. J. PETERSON v. CHARLES P. NEWBERRY

    006 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 2790 May 5, 1906 - CIRIACA MILLAN v. FLORENCIA MILLAN

    006 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 2801 May 5, 1906 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO v. MARIANO LIM

    006 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 3080 May 5, 1906 - NARCISO CABANTAG v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    006 Phil 273