May 1956 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > May 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-8873. May 2, 1956.] CIPRIANO AMORA, CONRADO MATONDO, APOLONIO SIGNAR, FLORENTINO LOVETE, LORETO CINCO, APOLINAR ROSAL and FILOMENO TABLO, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. FRANCO BIBERA, FRANCISCO TAVERA, MELECIO AGUILAR, SINFORIANO SERIDAN, ANTONIO BRIONES, ANTONIO RED, ISABELO REMOLADOR and FLORENCIO AGUILAR, Respondents-Appellants.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-8873.  May 2, 1956.]

CIPRIANO AMORA, CONRADO MATONDO, APOLONIO SIGNAR, FLORENTINO LOVETE, LORETO CINCO, APOLINAR ROSAL and FILOMENO TABLO, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. FRANCO BIBERA, FRANCISCO TAVERA, MELECIO AGUILAR, SINFORIANO SERIDAN, ANTONIO BRIONES, ANTONIO RED, ISABELO REMOLADOR and FLORENCIO AGUILAR, Respondents-Appellants.

 

D E C I S I O N

PADILLA, J.:

In this quo warranto case the Petitioners, chief of police, sergeant of police and patrolmen of the police force in the Municipality of Bato, Province of Leyte, raise the question of the legality of their ouster from office and of the appointment of the Respondents in their place and stead. They pray that they be reinstated to their respective positions and paid their back salaries from their removal from office to their reinstatement.

The parties agreed upon the following stipulation of facts:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

COME NOW the parties in the above-entitled case duly assisted by their respective counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully submit the following stipulation of facts agreed and admitted by said parties:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1.  That Petitioners and Respondents are residents of Bato, Leyte, of legal age and come within the jurisdiction of the Court;

2.  That Petitioner Cipriano Amora was duly appointed chief of police of Bato, Leyte, promotional, effective August 1, 1951, as evidenced by his promotional appointment which is marked as Exhibit “A” and his oath of office dated August 1, 1951 marked Exhibit “A-1”, and discharged his duties as such;

3.  That Petitioner Cipriano Amora was a Veteran of the last World War being a member of the Leyte Area Command under Col. Kangleon. He was inducted to the Philippine Army on September 3, 1941, fought in Bataan, joined the guerrilla organization of Col. Kangleon and was discharged from the Army on September 25, 1946, as per Exhibit “A-5”; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryhis special order dated September 3, 1944, as Sgt. of Leyte Area Command is evidenced by Exhibit “A-4”;

4.  That Petitioner Conrado Matondo was appointed Sgt. of Police of Bato, Leyte, on August 1, 1951 as evidenced by his appointment, Exhibit “B”, and entered upon the performance of his duties on December 28, 1951 as evidenced by Exhibit “B-1”;

5.  That Petitioner Loreto Cinco was appointed as policemen of Bato, Leyte on September 1, 1946 as shown by his appointment, Exhibits “C”, “C-2” and “C-3”, and entered upon the performance of his duties as such on the same date as shown by his oath of office, Exhibit “C-1”;

6.  That Petitioner Loreto Cinco was a veteran of the last war as evidenced by his discharge papers, Exhibit “C-4”;

7.  That Petitioner Apolinar Rosal was a veteran of the last war being inducted to B Company, 41st Inf., PA, at Tacloban, Leyte on February 25, 1946 as shown by his release papers, Exhibit “D-3”;

8.  That Petitioner Apolonio Signar was appointed municipal policeman of Bato, Leyte effective November 1, 1951 as shown by Exhibit “E”, and took office and began discharging his duties as such on the same date as evidenced by Exhibit “E-1”;

9.  That Petitioner Filomeno Tablo was a veteran of the last World War being a member of Company “A”, 96th Inf., 92nd Div., PA, Leyte Area Command, inducted to said organization on July 25, 1946, and discharged honorably from said organization on September 28, 1946 as shown by his discharge papers, Exhibit “F-3”;

10.  That Petitioner Florentino Lovete was appointed municipal policeman of Bato, Leyte on October 1, 1949 and took office on October 1, 1949, and began discharging the duties of his office as such on the same date as shown by his oath of office, Exhibit “G”. This Petitioner was given a promotional appointment effective January 1, 1951, as shown by his appointment, Exhibit “G-1”;

11.  That since Petitioners have been duly appointed, qualified and assumed their respective offices, they did not resign nor were they removed for misconduct and incompetency to the Philippine Government; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryneither have they committed illegal acts in the performance of their duties nor have they violated any law, rules and regulations in the performance of their duties nor have they been investigated for cause stated and against the provisions of Republic Act No. 557, and have continued in the discharge of their duties from the time of their appointment until February 21, 1954 when the Respondent Mayor Franco Bibera terminated their services as evidenced by a general order of termination dated February 20, 1954 which is marked as Exhibit “H”;

12.  That on February 22, 1954, Petitioner Cipriano Amora was ousted and relieved by Respondent Francisco Tavera as Chief of Police of Bato, Leyte; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat Petitioner Conrado Matondo was ousted and relieved by Respondent Melecio Aguilar as sergeant of the police force of Bato, Leyte, that Petitioner Filomeno Tablo was ousted and relieved by Respondent Florencio Aguilar as policeman of Bato, Leyte; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat Petitioner Apolinar Rosal was ousted and relieved by Respondent Isabelo Remolador as policeman of Bato, Leyte; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat Petitioner Loreto Cinco was ousted and relieved by Respondent Antonio Red as policeman of Bato, Leyte, and Petitioner Apolonio Signar was ousted and relieved by Respondent Sinforiano Serdan as policeman of Bato, Leyte;

13.  That Respondents have withheld and continue to withhold from the Petitioners their respective positions above-mentioned despite a demand by the latter for reinstatement; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand Petitioners have not been paid salaries from the time of termination of their services on February 21, 1954 until the present;

14.  That Respondents have assumed office as members of the police force of Bato, Leyte, vice the Petitioners and continued to hold said positions until the present time and having been paid their salaries from February 21, 1954 until the present;

15.  That in the termination order dated February 20, 1954 of Respondent Mayor Franco Bibera of Bato, Leyte terminated the appointments and services of Petitioners effective February 21, 1954 on the ground that said services were already terminated by operation of law, and the termination order is marked as Exhibit “H” for the Petitioners and Exhibit “1” for the Respondents;

16.  That in a letter written and signed by all the Petitioners to the Respondent Mayor of Bato, Leyte, under date of February 22, 1954, said Petitioners agreed to turn over the respective responsibilities as such police officers if no administrative decision will be received from the higher authorities within one month after date of said letter which is hereto attached and marked Exhibit “2”;

17.  That up to March 21, 1954, no administrative decision about the Petitioners’ appeal was received by or served upon the Petitioners or Respondents;

18.  That Petitioners have rendered their respective services as members of the police force of Bato, Leyte up to February 21, 1954, as evidenced by the certification of the ex-chief of police, Cipriano Amora, which certification is hereto annexed and marked Exhibit “3”;

19.  That Respondent Francisco Tavera was duly appointed by Respondent Franco Bibera, and took oath and assumed office on February 22, 1954 as Chief of Police of Bato, Leyte, vice Cipriano Amora, non- eligible, effective February 22, 1954 as shown by Respondent Francisco Tavera’s appointment - Exhibit “4”, certification of the mayor as Exhibit “4-A”, oath of office as Exhibit “4-B”, and information sheet as Exhibit “4-C”;

20.  That Francisco Tavera has a certificate from the Bureau of Civil Service dated January 17, 1952 showing that he passed patrolman’s examination of the date therein stated, which certificate is marked as Exhibit “4-D”. Previously said Respondent was appointed as Sergeant of Police of Maasin, Leyte on September 7, 1945 as shown by Exhibit “4-E”, and on October 28, 1948 he was appointed as Provincial Guard effective July 1, 1948 as shown by Exhibit “4-F”;

21.  That the civil service eligibility of Respondent Francisco Tavera has been passed upon, recognized and upheld by our Supreme Court in its decision of the case of Orais et al. vs. Ribo et al., G.R. No. L-4945, Official Gazette, Vol. 49, December, 1952, page 5386, et seq.;

22.  That Respondent Melecio Aguilar was duly appointed, took oath and assumed office as policeman of Bato, Leyte, vice Conrado Matondo, non-eligible and non-veteran, effective February 22, 1954 as shown by his appointment which is marked as Exhibit “5”, mayor’s certification as Exhibit “5-A”, oath of office as Exhibit “5-B”, and information sheet as Exhibit “5-C”. Said Respondent is in possession of certificate from the Bureau of Civil Service evidencing that he passed (83.9%) the assessor’s civil service examination, which document is marked as Exhibit “5-D”;

23.  That Respondent Florencio Aguilar was duly appointed as policeman of Bato, Leyte, took oath and assumed office, vice Filomeno Tablo, non-eligible, on February 22, 1954, as shown by his appointment which is hereby marked as Exhibit “6”, mayor’s certification as Exhibit “6-A”, oath of office as Exhibit “6-B”, and information sheet as Exhibit “6-C”; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat said Respondent was a soldier of the last World War as shown by his discharge papers marked Exhibit “6-D”. He is in possession of a graduation certificate from the Army Engineers’ School marked as Exhibit “6-E”. This Respondent is a high school graduate as evidenced by his high school diploma marked as Exhibit “6-F”;

24.  That Respondent Antonio Briones has been appointed, took oath and assumed office as member of the police force of Bato, Leyte, on February 22, 1954, vice Florencio Lovete, non-eligible and non- veteran, as evidenced by his appointment which is marked as Exhibit “7-B”, and information sheet as Exhibit “7-C”; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarysaid Respondent is in possession of discharge certificate dated April 20, 1949 which is marked as Exhibit “7-D”, and acknowledgment of service marked as Exhibit “7-E”;

25.  That Respondent Isabelo Remolador has been duly appointed, took oath and assumed office as policeman of Bato, Leyte, vice Apolinar Rosal, non-eligible, on February 22, 1954 as shown by his appointment marked “Exhibit “8”, mayor’s certification marked as Exhibit “8-A”, oath of office as Exhibit “8-B”, and information sheet, Exhibit “8-C”;

26.  That Respondent Antonio Red was duly appointed, took oath and assumed office as policeman of Bato, Leyte, vice Loreto Cinco, non- eligible, on February 22, 1954; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryas shown by his appointment marked Exhibit “9”; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarymayor’s certification, “9-A”; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryoath of office, “9-B”; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand information sheet, “9-C”. Said Respondent is a veteran of the last World War as evidenced by Exhibit “9-D”, which is his honorable discharge certificate;

27.  That Sinforiano Serdan was duly appointed as policeman of Bato, Leyte, took oath and assumed office vice Apolonio Signar, non- eligible and non-veteran, as shown by his appointment which is marked Exhibit “10”; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryoath of office, Exhibit “10-B”; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarymayor’s certification, Exhibit “10-A”; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand information sheet, Exhibit “10-C”. Sinforiano Serdan was a third year high school student as shown by Exhibit “10- D”, which is a certification issued by the registrar of Bato Academy at Bato, Leyte;

28.  That none of the Petitioners have taken and/or passed any civil service examination given by the Bureau of Civil Service, and their appointments were made according to section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code as per annotations in their respective appointments;

29.  That since the appointments of said Respondents effective February 22, 1954, all Respondents, except Franco Bibera who is a nominal party in this action, have regularly performed the duties of their offices and have been receiving their respective salaries to the present;

30.  That the appointments of the Respondents have been forwarded to the proper authorities. Letter of transmittal of said appointments signed by Mayor Franco Bibera dated February 22, 1954 is hereto attached and marked as Exhibit “11”;

31.  That Respondent Franco Bibera has not terminated the appointments and services of two previously appointed policemen of Bato, Leyte, namely, privates Eugenio Gerodias and Arcadio Gerodias, in view of their civil service eligibility;

32.  That Petitioner Loreto Cinco filed an indefinite leave of absence since February 1, 1954 is shown by his approved Application for Indefinite Leave of Absence, Exhibit “12”. This Petitioner is presently receiving a monthly service-connected disability pension from the United States Veterans Administration;

33.  That Petitioner Apolinar Rosal has secured a medical certificate claiming that he is physically weak as shown by Exhibit “13”, a certificate dated September 10, 1953;

34.  That Respondent Franco Bibera received a letter on February, 1954 from the Office of the President dated February 27, 1954, copy of which is marked as Exhibit “14” and attached hereto, requesting said mayor to explain why Petitioners should not be reinstated. The answer of Mayor Bibera embodied in a first indorsement dated March 11, 1954, a copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Exhibit “15”, was sent to the Office of the President;

35.  That a copy of the letter of the Executive Secretary, Office of the President, dated July 31, 1954, addressed to Rep. Domingo Veloso, upholding the legal action of Respondent Franco Bibera, has been received by Mayor Bibera on August 6, 1954, from the Office of the President. Said letter and envelope are hereto attached and marked Exhibits “16” and 16-A”, respectively.

36.  That the Respondents and Petitioners admit the authenticity and due execution of the foregoing exhibits, which are hereto attached and made integral part of this stipulation of facts, without necessarily admitting the conclusions therein contained, the latter being within the province of the Court to determine;

37.  That the parties reserve their rights to prove, submit, and offer such additional evidence as each party may deem necessary in the settlement of this action not hereinbefore stipulated, agreed and admitted;

38.  That the respective rights and claims of the Respondents and Petitioners are hereby submitted for determination and judgment of this Honorable Court, said parties reserving their intention to file or submit their respective memoranda in support of their contentions within a period of fifteen (15) days from the time the case is rested;

39.  That the right to appeal to the proper higher judicial courts and the right to other remedies and processes in aid of appeal is not barred or in any other way prejudiced by the foregoing stipulations.

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully submit the foregoing agreed and admitted stipulation of facts to be made the basis for judgment of this Honorable Court in this action.

Baybay, Leyte.

October 27, 1954.

TEODULO C. TANDAYAG  JUAN Y. REYES

For the Petitioners  For the Respondents

Ormoc City  Tacloban City.

OSCAR R. LEOPANDO  RAMON AM. TORRES

For the Petitioners  For the Respondents

Hilongos, Leyte  Baybay, Leyte

On 7 January 1955 the Court rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which was a mended on 22 January 1955 —

 cralaw in favor of the Petitioners and against the Respondents ordering Franco Bibera to reinstate the Petitioners to their respective positions and ordering the Respondents to vacate their places without pronouncement as to costs. The Court orders for the payment of the back salaries of the Petitioners during the period of their illegal separation from the service on February 21, 1954 up to the period of their reinstatement.

The Respondents have appealed.

The Petitioner Cipriano Amora, chief of police of Bato, Leyte, a veteran but without civil service eligibility, was replaced by Respondent Francisco Tavera who had passed the civil service examination for patrolman (Exhibit 4-D). Being a civil service eligible, Respondent Tavera’s appointment to replace a non-eligible temporarily occupying the position of chief of police is valid and legal. The fact that Petitioner Amora is a veteran does not give him the status of a civil service eligible under Republic Act No. 65, as amended by Republic Act No. 154, and he may be removed upon certification of an eligible by the Commissioner of Civil Service. 1 Likewise the appointment of Respondent Melecio Aguilar, who had passed the examination for special deputy assessor and hence a civil service eligible (Exhibit 5-D), to the position of sergeant of police in the place of Petitioner Conrado Matondo, a non-eligible temporarily holding the position of sergeant of police, is legal and valid.

It is argued that in the case of Respondents Tavera and Aguilar, their civil service eligibility already expired for their failure to obtain employment in the Government within one year after passing the civil service examination they had taken. This contention would have been sustained were it not for the fact that Republic Act No. 1079, approved on 15 June 1954, provides that “Civil Service eligibility shall be permanent and shall have no time limit;” and that “This Act shall be retroactive so as to include persons whose civil service eligibility had expired prior to its approval.”

The fact that the Respondents Tavera and Aguilar were appointed to positions other than to those for which they had qualified in the civil service does not militate against their appointment, for Petitioners have pointed out no law that prohibits the appointment of one who had passed a civil service examination to a position other than that for which he had qualified, especially when the position to which he has been appointed does not call for special knowledge or skill.

The temporary appointment of Respondent Sinforiano Serdan and Antonio Briones, the latter a veteran, both without civil service eligibility, to the position of policeman, vice Petitioners Apolonio Signar and Florentino Lovete, also without civil service eligibility, is legal and valid. Appointments made under section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Commonwealth Acts Nos. 177 and 281 are temporary, when the public interests so require and only upon the prior authorization of the Commissioner of Civil Service, not to exceed thirty days from receipt by the chief of the bureau or office of the Commissioner’s certification of an eligible. The temporary appointment of non-eligibles to replace non-eligibles whose terms have expired is not prohibited 1 The latter cannot successfully invoke the provisions of Republic Act No. 557 as the Act guarantees the tenure of office of provincial guards and members of city and municipal police who are eligibles. Non-eligibles do not come under the protection of the Act. 2

The replacement of the Petitioners Loreto Cinco, Apolinar Rosal and Filomeno Tablo, all veterans but without civil service eligibility, by Respondents Antonio Red, Isabelo Remolador and Florencio Aguilar, all without civil service eligibility, is illegal because the Petitioners Cinco, Rosal and Tablo are veterans appointed within three years as provided for in Republic Act No. 65, as amended by Republic Act No. 154. Although not civil service eligibles they are entitled as veterans to protection in office pending receipt by the chief of the bureau or office of certification of eligibles from the Commissioner of Civil Service 3 And although the Respondents Antonio Red and Florencio Aguilar are also veterans, they cannot be appointed to replace veterans who were appointed within the period of time as provided for in Republic Act No. 65, as amended by Republic Act No. 154, and are entitled to protection in office. Moreover, the appointment of veterans Antonio Red and Florencio Aguilar on 22 February 1954 was made beyond or outside the period of time as provided for in said Act as a mended. 4

Accordingly, the appointment of Respondents Francisco Tavera as chief of police, vice Cipriano Amora; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryMelecio Aguilar as sergeant of police, vice Conrado Matondo; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand Sinforiano Serdan and Antonio Briones as policemen, vice Apolonio Signar and Florentino Lovete, respectively, being legal and valid, the judgment appealed from insofar as it concerns them is reversed and set aside, and the petition as to them dismissed. The dismissal of the Petitioners Loreto Cinco, Apolinar Rosal and Filomeno Tablo, all policemen, and the appointment of Respondents Antonio Red, Isabelo Remolador and Florencio Aguilar in their place and stead being illegal, the judgment appealed from insofar as it concerns them is affirmed and the Respondent Franco Bibera, Mayor of Bato, Leyte, ordered to reinstate the Petitioners Cinco, Rosal and Tablo. The rest of the judgment as to those to be reinstated is affirmed. No costs shall be taxed.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.

 

Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

  1.  Orais vs. Ribo, 49 Off. Gaz., 5386, 5393; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryInocente vs. Ribo, 50 Off. Gaz., 4853.

  1.  Orais vs. Ribo, supra; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryPaña vs. Medina, 50 Off. Gaz., 146; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryManigbas vs. De Guzman, 94 Phil., 245. Inocente vs. Ribo, supra.

  2.  Orais vs. Ribo, supra.

  3.  Orais vs. Ribo, supra; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryInocente vs. Ribo, supra.

  4.  Inocente vs. Ribo, supra.




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-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-8873. May 2, 1956.] CIPRIANO AMORA, CONRADO MATONDO, APOLONIO SIGNAR, FLORENTINO LOVETE, LORETO CINCO, APOLINAR ROSAL and FILOMENO TABLO, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. FRANCO BIBERA, FRANCISCO TAVERA, MELECIO AGUILAR, SINFORIANO SERIDAN, ANTONIO BRIONES, ANTONIO RED, ISABELO REMOLADOR and FLORENCIO AGUILAR, Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7155. May 4, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JESUS AGASANG, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8049. May 9, 1956.] BUKLOD �G SAULOG TRANSIT, Petitioner, vs. MARCIANO CASALLA, ET ALS., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7261. May 11, 1956.] THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, PASIG, RIZAL, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. HEIRS OF HI CAIJI and ELISEO YMZON, Oppositors-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7902. May 11, 1956.] MANILA PRESS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MARCELINO SARMIENTO, as City Treasurer of the City of Manila, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8399. May 11, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BIENVENIDO UMALI, ET AL., Defendants. BIENVENIDO UMALI, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8718. May 11, 1956.] MALATE TAXICAB & GARAGE, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND NATIONAL LABOR UNION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-8787 & L-8788. May 11, 1956.] BIENVENIDO PACIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. VICENTE VI�AS and GUILLERMO ORBETA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-8830 & L-8837-39. May 11, 1956.] BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL M. MEJIA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9048. May 11, 1956.] MARIANO BEYSA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAGAYAN, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7031. May 14, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EUSEBIO MOLIJON, ET AL., Defendants, EUSEBIO MOLIJON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7088. May 16, 1956.] BACOLOD ICE AND COLD STORAGE CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. NEGROS ICE AND COLD STORAGE CO. INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7240. May 16, 1956.] LADISLAO PALMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HONORATO GRACIANO, THE CITY OF CEBU, HON. MIGUEL CUENCO AND THE PROVINCE OF CEBU, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-5995. May 18, 1956.] MANUEL CHUA KAY, Petitioner, vs. LIM CHANG, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7409. May 18, 1956.] INTERWOOD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, vs. INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD & VENEER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES (INTERWOOD), Respondent.

  • Name[G.R. No. L-7555. May 18, 1956.] JOHN D. SINGLETON, as guardian of the property of the incompetent WALTER E. HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7880. May 18, 1956.] RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION Co., INC., Petitioner, vs. TEOFILO CERDA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8101. May 18, 1956.] MARIANO DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8133. May 18, 1956.] MANUEL C. MANARANG and LUCIA D. MANARANG, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. MACARIO M. OFILADA, Sheriff of the City of Manila and ERNESTO ESTEBAN, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8147. May 18, 1956.] ALFONSO BACSARPA, VENANCIO LAUSA and FERNANDO MACAS, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8328. May 18, 1956.] MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. SOTERO REMOQUILLO, in his own behalf and as guardian of the minors MANUEL, BENJAMIN, NESTOR, MILAGROS, CORAZON, CLEMENTE and AURORA, all surnamed MAGNO, SALUD MAGNO, and the COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8340. May 18, 1956.] ANGEL ALAFRIZ, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE PRIMITIVO GONZALES, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8551. May 18, 1956.] AUGUSTO C. DE LA PAZ, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. CDR RAMON A. ALCARAZ, as Commander, Service Squadron, Philippine Navy, etc., et al., Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8596. May 18, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JULIANA UBA and CALIXTA UBA, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8789. May 18, 1956.] ANG KOO LIONG, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8826. May 18, 1956.] ISABELO I. PACQUING and CARMEN B. PACQUING, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. HONORABLE LAURO C. MAIQUEZ, Acting Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila and AUYONG HIAN, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8874. May 18, 1956.] GAVINO CONJURADO and JORGIA MORALES, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Surigao, and VEDASTO R. NIERE, Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Surigao, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8934. May 18, 1956.] ANASTACIO T. TEODORO, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ARMANDO MIRASOL, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8660. May 21, 1956.] ISAAC NAVARRE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICENTE BARREDO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7991. May 21, 1956.] PAUL MACDONALD, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7746. May 23, 1956.] FRANCISCO PULUTAN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. HONORABLE TOMAS DIZON, as Mayor, the MUNICIPAL BOARD, City of San Pablo, and SIMON MAGPANTAY, City Treasurer of San Pablo City, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8041. May 23, 1956.] JOSEPH ARCACHE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. B. S. CHAINANI, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8292. May 23, 1956.] RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. TEODOLFO ASCA�O, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8349. May 23, 1956.] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MACAPANGA PRODUCERS INC., Defendant. PLARIDEL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8898. May 23, 1956.] PLACIDO PEREZ, Petitioner, vs. HON. ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ, Judge, Court of First Instance of Davao, and APOLONIO PAGARAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8945. May 23, 1956.] THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAMILING, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DIEGO Z. LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8991. May 23, 1956.] FELIX GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ISABEL VDA. DE ARJONA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-6930. May 23, 1956.] ROBERT JANDA, as administrator of the estate of Walter C. Wurdeman, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7532. May 25, 1956.] PEDRO MALONG and LOURDES MALONG, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. MACARIO OFILADA and A. B. MENDOZA, Sheriff and Chief Deputy Sheriff of Manila, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7821. May 25, 1956.] Heirs of Gervacio D. Gonzales, namely: PILAR GONZALES DE DARCERA, FELIX GONZALES, RICARDO GONZALES, JOSE GONZALES, FRANCISCO GONZALES and CHARLITOS GONZALES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. ARCADIO ALEGARBES, EUSEBIO BANDEBAS and JUANITO QUIRANTES, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7916. May 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTURO R. SILO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8055. May 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MORO JUMDATAL, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8227. May 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TOMAS QUITAN, ET AL., Defendants. TEOFILO ANCHITA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8579. May 25, 1956.] PALINKUD SAMAL, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and GREGORIA VDA. DE PALMA GIL, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8586. May 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CONRADO MANALO Y GUANLAO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8589. May 25, 1956.] THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN�S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND DOMINGO PANALIGAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8669. May 25, 1956.] VICENTA REYES, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. GUARDALINO C. MOSQUEDA and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8681. May 25, 1956.] LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, Petitioner, vs. LEON C. PINEDA AND PINEDA�S LIGHTER TRANSPORTATION, INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8744. May 25, 1956.] THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, vs. MAGDALENA A. VDA. DE SAYSON, ETC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8759. May 25, 1956.] SEVERINO UNABIA, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. THE HONORABLE CITY MAYOR, CITY TREASURER, CITY AUDITOR and the CITY ENGINEER, Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-8820 & L-8821. May 25, 1956.] MARCIAL PUNZALAN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9306. May 25, 1956.] SOUTHERN MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ELISEO BARBOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7570. May 28, 1956.] PHILIPPINE REFINING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO PONCE (President of the Employees and Laborers Association, Philippine Refining Co., Inc.), ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-6938. May 30, 1956.] J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MIGUEL DE GUZMAN and LUCIA SANCHEZ, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7151. May 30, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ELIGIO JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7273. May 30, 1956.] THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7444. May 30, 1956.] CEBU ARRASTRE SERVICE, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8025. May 30, 1956.] JOSE AMAR, ESPERANZA AMAR, ILDEFONSO AMAR, TORIBIO AMAR, BERNARDO AMAR, DOLORES AMAR and ANTONIO AMAR, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. TIMOTEO PAGHARION, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8056. May 30, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO BUENAFE Y CALUPAS, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8150. May 30, 1956.] HILARION TOLENTINO, LUIS LAMONDA�A, NERIO MONCES, ALFONSO SERRANO, LAURO GARCES, ENRIQUE COSTALES, JUSTINIANO ORTEGA and TEOFILO MARTINES, Petitioners, vs. RAMON ANGELES, FELIX MAPILI, MANULI SALVADOR and DOMINADOR BOLINAO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8505. May 30, 1956.] THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8640. May 30, 1956.] JOSE FERNANDEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. KEE WA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8690. May 30, 1956.] JULIAN FLORENTINO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8775. May 30, 1956.] LEONCIO DAYATA, alias SEE SING TOW, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. HONORABLE VICENTE DE LA CRUZ, as Commissioner of Immigration, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8962. May 30, 1956.] DIONISIO FENIS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ANDRES F. CORDERO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9325. May 30, 1956.] ROSARIO MATUTE, Petitioner, vs. HON. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch X, and ARMANDO MEDEL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-6858. May 31, 1956.] FERNANDO IGNACIO and SIMEON DE LA CRUZ, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. THE HONORABLE NORBERTO ELA, Mayor of Sta. Cruz, Zambales, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7096. May 31, 1956.] IN RE: PETITION to Change Citizenship Status from Chinese to Filipino Citizen on Transfer Certificates of Title issued to Heirs of Ricardo Villa-Abrille Lim; AND/OR, in the alternative, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment to determine Citizenship status, LORENZO VILLA- ABRILLE LIM, GUI�GA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, ROSALIA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, ADOLFO VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, SAYA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, LUISA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, and CANDELARIA VILLA-ABRILLE TAN, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7544. May 31, 1956.] Intestate Estate of Joaquin Navarro and Angela Joaquin, deceased. RAMON JOAQUIN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO, Oppositor-Appellee.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-7996-99. May 31, 1956.] ESTATE OF FLORENCIO P. BUAN, Petitioner, vs. PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY AND LA MALLORCA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8264. May 31, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTEMIO GARCIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-8352. May 31, 1956.] JUANA BAYAUA DE VISAYA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANTONIO SUGUITAN and CATALINA BLAZ, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8477. May 31, 1956.] THE PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, as Guardian of the Property of the minor, MARIANO L. BERNARDO, Petitioner, vs. SOCORRO ROLDAN, FRANCISCO HERMOSO, FIDEL C. RAMOS and EMILIO CRUZ, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8619. May 31, 1956.] MANUEL ARICHETA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA, HONORABLE MARIANO CASTA�EDA, Justice of the Peace of Mabalacat, Pampanga, NOLI B. CASTRO, PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES and ANTOLIN TIGLAO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8697. May 31, 1956.] CHUA CHIAN, in her capacity as widow of her deceased husband NG YOC SIU, and in behalf of her children with said deceased, NG SIU HONG and MARCELINO NG SIU LIM, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, in his capacity as presiding Judge of Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8749. May 31, 1956.] DOMINGO MAYOL and EMILIO MAYOL, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE EDMUNDO S. PICCIO in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, JULIAN MAYOL and IRENEA LASIT, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8967. May 31, 1956.] ANASTACIO VIA�A, Petitioner, vs. ALEJO AL-LAGADAN and FILOMENA PIGA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9282. May 31, 1956.] EMILIO ADVINCULA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and ENRIQUE A. LACSON, Respondents.