May 1956 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > May 1956 Decisions > [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.:




EN BANC

[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.

 

D E C I S I O N

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Appellant Augusto C. de la Paz is a reserve officer in the Philippine Navy, Armed Forces of the Philippines. Prior to February, 1954, he was in the active service of the Philippine Navy, being the Naval Commanding Officer of Philippine Chaser P-19, RPS Cavite. On November 16, 1953, however, his superior officer, Commander Ramon A. Alcaraz, recommended his immediate reversion to inactive status on the ground of inefficiency; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand acting on such recommendation, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, on February 5, 1954, issued an order reverting Appellant to inactive status effective March 4, 1954.

Upon his reversion to inactive status, Appellant obtained and was given full and complete ship’s clearances of all government properties, funds, and money accountabilities covering his former command. But shortly thereafter, charges were lodged against him for misappropriation of government property allegedly committed while he was still in active military service. Wherefore, the Headquarters of the Philippine Navy summoned Appellant to appear for an investigation into the charges with a view to bringing him before a General Navy Court Martial. Appellant refused to submit to the investigation, claiming that having been reverted to civilian status, he was no longer within the jurisdiction of the Philippine Navy; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythen on August 7, 1954, he filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Manila to enjoin Respondents Commander Ramon A. Alcaraz and Major Serafin C. Dizon of the Philippine Navy, from subjecting him into the aforesaid investigation. The lower court found his petition without merit and dismissed the same; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryhence, his present appeal.

There is no question that although Appellant had been reverted to inactive (civilian) status in the reserve force of the Philippine Army, he is still amenable to investigation and court-martial under the Articles of War by the Philippine Navy for alleged acts of misappropriation of government funds committed while he was still in the active-military service. As correctly held by the Court below, Appellant’s case falls within the provisions of Article 95 of the Articles of War (Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended), which provides as follows;

“ART. 95.  Frauds against the Government affecting matters and equipments. — Any person subject to military law who, having charge, possession, custody, or control of any money or other property of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, furnished or intended for the military service thereof, knowingly delivers, or causes to be delivered, to any person having authority to receive the same, any amount thereof less than that for which he receives a certificate or receipt or.

x x x                    x x x                    x x x

Who steals, embezzles, knowingly and willfully misappropriaties, applies to his own use or benefit, or wrongfully or knowingly sells or disposes of an ordinance, arms, equipments, ammunition, clothing, subsistence stores, money, or other property of the Commonwealth of the Philippine furnished or intended for the military service thereof; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryor

x x x                    x x x                    x x x

 cralaw And if any person, being guilty of any of the offenses aforesaid while in the military service of the Philippine, receives his discharge or is dismissed from the service, he shall continue to be liable to be arrested and held for trial and sentence by a court- martial in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had not received such discharge nor been dismissed cralaw .” (Appellees brief, pp. 5-6).

The lower Court did not, therefore, err in refusing to enjoin Appellant’s investigation by the naval authorities on charges that he had misappropriated public property while he was still in the service of the Philippine Navy, specially since Petitioner admits that he is still a member of the Reserve Force.

But Appellant insists that the Court below should have admitted his amended petition, which included a prayer for a writ of certiorari to review the order reverting him to inactive (civilian) status, and should have annulled said order because it constituted his summary dismissal from service without due process of law.

The argument is untenable for several reasons.

In the first place, Appellant was ordered reverted from active status to civilian or inactive status in the Reserve Force, not by the Respondents Commander Ramon A. Alcaraz and Major Serafin C. Dizon of the Philippine Navy, but by the chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, upon order of the Secretary of National Defense based on a directive of the President of the Philippines. The Court below could not, therefore, in any case have nullified and set aside said order of reversion because the real party in interest had not been impleaded and made a party to the petition.

In the second place, Appellant’s reversion to inactive status in the reserve force is not, as he claims, a dismissal from the service. Although he had ceased to be in the active service of the Philippine Navy, Appellant nevertheless remain an officer of the Army reserve force. Officers in the naval reserve may be transferred from active to inactive service as the army authorities may see fit (cf. 6 C.J. S. 17, citing Denby vs. Berry, 44 S. Ct. 74, 263 U. S. 29, 68 L. Ed. 148), and Appellant cannot rightly complain that he had been dismissed or discharged without due process, because mere transfer from active to inactive service in the army is neither dismissal nor discharge.

Furthermore, the matter of transfer from one status to another, or even the dismissal or discharge of officers and servicemen in the armed forces, is a matter entirely within the realm of the military. If Petitioner felt aggrieved by the recommendation made by his superior officer of his reversion to inactive status without proper hearing and investigation of his alleged inefficiency, he should have sought redress by appeal to the President of the Philippines, who is the Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, through the proper military channels. As provided by Article 120 of the Articles of War, as amended by Republic Act No. 242:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“Art. 120.  Complaints of Wrongs. — Any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or Philippine Constabulary who believe himself wrong by his commanding officer, and, upon due application to such commander, is refused redress, may complain to the area or zone commander or the next superior officer in the area or zone where the officer against whom the complaint is made is stationed. The area or zone commander or next superior officer shall examine into said complaint and take’ proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand he shall, as soon as possible, transmit to Headquarters, Armed Forces of the Philippines, a true statement of said complaint, with the proceedings had thereon.”

Not having exhausted all administrative remedies, Appellant cannot seek relief in the courts of justice (Miguel, et al. vs. Vda. de Reyes, 93 Phil., 542).

Wherefore, the resolution appealed from is affirmed, with costs against Appellant Augusto C. de la Paz. SO ORDERED.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Endencia, 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-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.