Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-14991-94 May 30, 1960 - JAIME T. BUENAFLOR v. CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORP.

108 Phil 472:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. L-14991-94. May 30, 1960.]

JAIME T. BUENAFLOR, Petitioner, v. CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORPORATION, Respondent.

Manuel O. Chan and Vicente Ampil for Petitioner.

Evaristo R. Sandoval and Claro T. Almeda for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE; EXPIRATION OF CORPORATE LIFE OF GRANTEE. — A corporation-grantee of a certificate of public convenience to operate ice plant can not lawfully continue to sell ice after the expiration of its corporate life. Neither can it apply for a new certificate for it is incapable of receiving a grant. It can only continue to exist for three years for the purpose of winding up its affairs.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Jaime T. Buenaflor has appealed the decision of the Public Service Commission which rejected his application to install and operate a 5-ton ice plant in Sabang (Calabanga, Camarines Sur) even as it permitted Camarines Sur Industry Corporation to build in that barrio, a factory with the same output.

On June 25, 1957, Buenaflor filed his said application (P. S. Case 107548) together with another application to establish a cold storage and refrigeration service of about 6,000 cubic feet capacity (P.S. Case 107549). The Commission, by order of September 12, 1957, set the applications for hearing on October 9, 1957, requiring applicant to publish them in two newspapers, and to serve copy thereof to Iñigo Daza and Camarines Sur Industry Corporation (hereinafter called Camarines Corporation). These owned ice plants in neighboring municipalities and had been apparently selling ice to Sabang’s inhabitants.

After receiving copy of Buenaflor’s applications, the Camarines Corporation submitted to the Commission on October 1, 1957, its own two applications: one for authority to construct and mange a 5-ton ice plant, and another for a cold storage and refrigeration system, both in Sabang too (P. S. Cases 109874 and 109875). It likewise registered opposition to Buenaflor’s proposed ice business, on the ground that it was the pioneer distributor of the commodity in that particular locality.

When the petitions of Buenaflor were called for hearing on October 9, 1957, the attorney for Camarines Corporation voicing its application, invited attention to his client’s applications, moved for postponement, and agreed to a joint hearing of the four applications of both parties on October 25, 1957.

On the last mentioned date, Buenaflor’s attorney’s presented a motion to dismiss the Camarines Corporation’s applications, challenging its personality, inasmuch as its corporate life had expired in November 1953, in accordance with its own articles of incorporation. Surprised by the move, counsel of Camarines Corporation asked, and was granted, time to answer. Immediately thereafter, the corporators of Camarines Corporation got busy and executed on October 30, 1957, and registered October 31, 1957, new articles of incorporation of Camarines Sur Industry Corporation, and at the same time, notarized a deed of conveyance assigning to the new corporation, all the assets of the expired (old) corporation, together with its existing certificates of public convenience to operate ice factories in Naga and Magarao.

Without loss of time, the corporators of the defunct (old) corporation and the newly organized corporation petitioned the Public Service Commission for the approval of the conveyance, and on November 7, 1957, the Commission provisionally approved the transfer of assets, plus the certificates of public convenience.

On November 8, 1957, the Camarines Corporation (new) answered the motion to dismiss, by alleging — to the amazement of Buenaflor — its recent incorporation, plus its acquisition of the assets and certificates of the old Camarines Corporation with the Commission’s approval as above described.

Reiterating his application, while resisting the Camarines Corporation, Buenaflor argued: (a) he was first to apply; (b) although the old Camarines Corporation had been operating an ice plant in Magarao town, only six kilometers away, it neglected to take the trouble of applying until Buenaflor had made his application; (c) the preference which the new Camarines Corporation claims by virtue of the old corporation’s having distributed ice in Sabang for the years previous to Buenaflor’s application, should not be granted, because since 1953 such old corporation had ceased to be a juridical entity, and could not lawfully continue in business nor invoke any protection or preference.

Evidence was presented in support of the applications and oppositions.

The Commission, in its decision of December 12, 1958, after settling forth the gist of the proofs submitted to it, made the following considerations and conclusions.

"There is a clear need for an ice plant and a cold storage service in the barrio of Sabang and question to decide is who of the applicant should be granted the necessary authority inasmuch as we do not believe from the evidence that we should authorize two ice plants of 5 tons each and two cold storage chambers with a total capacity of 14,000 cubic feet. As to the ice plant service, we find that Buenaflor filed his application ahead of the Camarines Corporation but the evidence and our records show that the Camarines Corporation is really the pioneer ice plant in Magarao since 1945 which now has a capacity of 10 tons, and another ice plant in Naga since 1946 which now has a capacity of 12 1/2 tons. It is established that the Camarines Corporation has been rendering ice service thru delivery in Sabang but we doubt whether its service has been adequate because there is satisfactory proof that ice also comes from other places. The fact, however, is that the Camarines Corporation cannot be said to have neglected its duty to serve Sabang and we believe that the storage in its service has been due to the fact that the produce of its Naga and Magarao plants are needed for its other territories with not much to spare for Sabang. We think that as the pioneer ice plant operator in Naga and Magarao with authority to serve Sabang the Camarines Corporation, which has not abandoned its service in Sabang, is entitled to the protection of its investments and to put up an ice plant in Sabang, it having been shown that there is a need for a plant in Sabang, and that the Camarines Corporation has been rendering service therein although in a limited manner. We believe, therefore, that applicant Camarines Corporation has a better right than Buenaflor to the certificate for a 5-ton ice plant in Sabang. As to the cold storage service, we think that Buenaflor has a better right to the certificate. . . . By virtue of Buenaflor’s right of priority in the filing of his application and the fact that he is as financially capable as the Camarines Corporation to install the service, we believe that the certificate for the cold storage service in Sabang should be granted to Buenaflor, but inasmuch as we take notice of the fact that a cold storage operator also needs ice for the preservation of fish and other perishable foodstuffs when these cannot be immediately deposited in the refrigerating chambers and also to provide its customers with ice they need after the goods are removed from the chambers, we believe that applicant Buenaflor may also be granted a certificate for a one (1) ton ice plant in Sabang together with a certificate for 5,000 cubic feet cold storage service."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Camarines Corporation did not appeal. Buenaflor appealed in so far as he was denied authority to erect a 5-ton ice plant.

Therefore, the question of cold storage service is not here in issue, since Buenaflor got it, and Camarines Corporation did not appeal.

As to the ice plant, Buenaflor insists he should be given authority to establish a 5-ton ice plant — not the new Camarines Corporation. His line of argument centers around the expiration of the old Corporation’s charter in 1953; and we think he touches the vital spot.

It is admitted — and the Commission found — that the needs of Sabang Barrio will be conveniently served with the establishment of a 5-ton ice plant. But it elected to deny Buenaflor’s application, even as it awarded the privilege to the new Camarines Corporation on the ground that it (the old corporation) had been serving ice in Sabang up to the time of Buenaflor’s application, and was, consequently, the pioneer operator there.

The fact, however, is that since 1953, the old Corporation had been illegally plying its business of selling ice in Sabang because, under the Corporation Law, Sec. 77, after November 1953, it could not lawfully continue the business for which it had been established (operate ice plant, sell ice, etc). After November 1953, it could only continue to exist for three years for the purpose of prosecuting and defending suits by or against it, and of enabling it gradually to settle and close its affairs, to dispose and convey its property and to divide its capital stock. It could not, without violating the law, continue to sell ice. And yet, the Commission awarded the certificate on the basis of such service and distribution of ice — applying the "prior operator" rule. 1 In other words, the new Camarines Corporation is rewarded, precisely because the old corporation, its predecessor, had violated the law during that period (1953-1957). We can not, and should not countenance such anomalous result.

On the other hand, when the old Camarines Corporation docketed its application October 1, 1957, it had no juridical personality, it had ceased to exist as a corporation and could not sue 2 nor apply for a certificate, for it was incapable of receiving a grant 3 . It was not even a corporation de facto 4 . And then, there is no application subscribed by the new Camarines Corporation. Far from being mere technicality, these points support a conclusion which appears to be just and equitable, not only for the reasons already indicated, but also to compensate Buenaflor’s diligence and courage in exposing the irregular practice 5 of a "ghost" corporation foisting its services upon the unsuspecting public of Sabang and neighboring territory — enjoying a franchise without paying, perhaps, the corporate income tax 6 and other burdens attached to corporate existence.

Remembering the Camarines Corporation’s automatic cessation in November 1956 (three years after November 1953) we must decline to regard the new Camarines Corporation (formed October 30, 1957) as a continuation of the old. 7 At most, it is the transferee of the properties of the old corporation (or more properly, the assets of the stockholders) plus the certificate of public convenience to operate the ice plant in Naga and Magarao. 8 And yet, as stated, the new corporation has not filed any application for certificate of public convenience in Sabang, and has not published such application.

On these grounds, we think it was error to grant preferential treatment to the new Camarines Corporation over Jaime T. Buenaflor who, besides being qualified, in the eyes of the Commission, had applied for the privilege months in advance of the old Camarines Corporation, and of the incorporation of the new Camarines Corporation.

Wherefore, revoking the appealed decision in so far as it awarded the certificate to said Corporation, we hereby approve Buenaflor’s application for five tons, instead of one ton, subject to the usual conditions imposed by the Public Service Commission on ice plant establishments.

Costs against Camarines Corporation.

Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Barrera and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Javier v. Orlanes, 55 Phil., 468; Bachrach Motors Co. v. Elchico, 91 Phil., 584; 48 Off. Gaz., 2700.

2. Fletcher, Cyc. of Corp. (1942) Vol. XVI, secs. 8116, 8118; Philippine Milling Co. v. Court of Appeals, 100 Phil., 566; 53 Off. Gaz., 623.

3. 7 R. C. L. Corporations par. 745.

4. Fletcher, op cit. Vol. XVI, secs. 8113, 3842; 19 Corpus Juris Secundum, pp. 1486, 1562.

5. Not to say illegal.

6. Fletcher, supra, sec. 8129.

7. If it were a continuation, could it be made responsible for the laws violation in 1953-1957?

8. Buenaflor contends, apparently with some reason, that the transfer was ineffective, because upon cessation of its corporate life, the certificate of public convenience of the old Camarines Corporation automatically reverted to the State (cf. Corpus Juris Secundum, sec. 1729). We do not, because we need not reach this issue.




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-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12007 May 16, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    108 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13831 May 16, 1960 - DIOSDADO CHAVEZ v. BUENAVENTURA GANZON

    108 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-13092 May 18, 1960 - EMILIA MENDOZA v. CAMILO BULANADI

    108 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-13208 May 18, 1960 - OREN IGO v. NATIONAL ABACA CORP.

    108 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-13783 May 18, 1960 - FRANCISCO CAPALUNGAN v. FULGENCIO MEDRANO

    108 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-15300 May 18, 1960 - MANUEL REGALADO v. PROVINCIAL CONSTABULARY COMMANDER OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

    108 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. L-10948 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO MORTERO

    108 Phil 31

  • G.R. Nos. L-11795-96 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RECARIDO JARDENIL

    108 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-12446 May 20, 1960 - ELISEO SILVA v. BELEN CABRERA

    108 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-12546 May 20, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS P. PAREDES

    108 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-12726 May 20, 1960 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. VISITACION CONSUNTO

    108 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-13046 May 20, 1960 - EGMIDIO T. PASCUA v. PEDRO TUASON

    108 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-13372 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO SABUERO

    108 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-13484 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR CAMERINO

    108 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-13836 May 20, 1960 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-13846 May 20, 1960 - PANGASINAN EMPLOYEES, LABORERS AND TENANTS ASSN. v. ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ

    108 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-14332 May 20, 1960 - KAPISANAN SA MRR CO. v. CREDIT UNION

    108 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-14355 May 20, 1960 - JOSE D. DACUDAO v. AGUSTIN D. DUEÑAS

    108 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-14388 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIANO DAYRIT

    108 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-14426 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN BAYONA

    108 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-9651 May 23, 1960 - POLICARPIO MENDEZ v. SENG KIAM

    108 Phil 109

  • G.R. Nos. L-10046-47 May 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON RODRIGUEZ

    108 Phil 118

  • G.R. Nos. L-13803 & L-13400 May 23, 1960 - JOSE DE LA PAZ v. MD TRANSIT AND TAXICAB CO., INC.

    108 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-13806 May 23, 1960 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-13965 May 23, 1960 - CONSTANTINO LEDUNA, ET., AL. v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ

    108 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-14981 May 23, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. MARCELINO SARMIENTO

    108 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15339 May 23, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-15485 May 23, 1960 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-16445 May 23, 1960 - VICENTE ACAIN v. BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CARMEN

    108 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-12624 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GANTANG KASIM

    108 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-12690 May 25, 1960 - ARCADIO M. QUIAMBAO v. ANICETO MORA

    108 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-12766 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. S. JACALA, ET., AL.

    108 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-12916 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO AQUIDADO

    108 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-13296 May 25, 1960 - SOFRONIO T. UNTALAN v. VICENTE G. GELLA

    108 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-13391 May 25, 1960 - AUREA MATIAS v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES

    108 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-13464 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-13651 May 25, 1960 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF JARO v. HIGINO MILITAR

    108 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-13711 May 25, 1960 - GREGORIO SALAZAR v. JUSTINIANA DE TORRES

    108 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-13819 May 25, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BLAS GUTIERREZ

    108 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-13933 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    108 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-14115 May 25, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SUPERIOR GAS AND EQUIPMENT CO.

    108 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-14134 May 25, 1960 - BISHOP OF LEGASPI v. MANUEL CALLEJA

    108 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. L-14214 May 25, 1960 - RICHARD VELASCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-14500 May 25, 1960 - QUIRINA PACHOCO v. AGRIPINA TUMANGDAY

    108 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-14515 May 25, 1960 - ENRIQUE ZOBEL v. GUILLERMO MERCADO

    108 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-14590 May 25, 1960 - FERNANDO DATU v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON

    108 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-14619 May 25, 1960 - MIGUEL YUVIENGCO v. PRIMITIVO GONZALES

    108 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-14722 May 25, 1960 - IGNACIO MESINA v. EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA

    108 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-15132 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO B. CRUZ

    108 Phil 255

  • G.R. Nos. L-16341 & L-16470 May 25, 1960 - ADRIANO RABE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    108 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12150 May 26, 1960 - BENJAMIN CO., v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12876 May 26, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL UNITED WORKERS, INC.

    108 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-13847 May 26, 1960 - DOMINADOR BORDA v. ENRIQUE TABALON

    108 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. L-14319 May 26, 1960 - EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA v. SUSANO R. NEGADO

    108 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. L-15073 May 26, 1960 - OPERATOR’S INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    108 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-15144 May 26, 1960 - ALFREDO A. AZUELO v. RAMON ARNALDO

    108 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-15777 May 26, 1960 - ANTONIO NIPAY v. JOSE M. MANGULAT

    108 Phil 297

  • G.R. Nos. L-14254 & L-14255 May 27, 1960 - STA. CECILLA SAWMILLS CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 300

  • G.R. Nos. L-10371 & L-10409 May 30, 1960 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. DANIEL RAYALA

    108 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-11551 May 30, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALFONSO FAVIS

    108 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-12260 May 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FARM IMPLEMENT

    108 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-12627 May 30, 1960 - ALFONSO TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-12798 May 30, 1960 - VISAYAN CEBU TERMINAL CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    108 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-12907 May 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO AMBAHANG

    108 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-12958 May 30, 1960 - FAUSTINO IGNACIO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    108 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-12963 May 30, 1960 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. ALFONSO YUCHENGCO

    108 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-13034 May 30, 1960 - GREGORIO ARONG v. VICTOR WAJING

    108 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-13153 May 30, 1960 - GLICERIO ROMULO v. ESTEBAN DASALLA

    108 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. L-13223 May 30, 1960 - OSCAR MENDOZA ESPUELAS v. PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF BOHOL

    108 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. L-13412 May 30, 1960 - DESTILLERIA LIM TUACO & COMPANY, INC. v. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

    108 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-13419 May 30, 1960 - CASIANO SALADAS v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY

    108 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-13662 May 30, 1960 - CEFERINO ESTEBAN v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

    108 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. L-13793 May 30, 1960 - PACIFIC LINE, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    108 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-13845 May 30, 1960 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY

    108 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-13910 May 30, 1960 - MANILA YELLOW TAXI-CAB, INC. v. EDMUNDO L. CASTELO

    108 Phil 394

  • G.R. Nos. L-14069 & L-14149 May 30, 1960 - UY HA v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

    108 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. L-14280 May 30, 1960 - JUAN YSMAEL & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-14342 May 30, 1960 - CIRIACO L. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-14391 May 30, 1960 - GENARO SENEN v. MAXIMA A. DE PICHAY

    108 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14392 May 30, 1960 - ALBERTO FERNANDEZ v. PABLO CUNETA

    108 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-14459 May 30, 1960 - AGRINELDA N. MICLAT v. ELVIRA GANADEN

    108 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-14681 May 30, 1960 - ROSARIO PO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    108 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-14691 May 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO N. TEVES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-14700 May 30, 1960 - BENITO R. GUINTO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-14800 May 30, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. CITY OF MANILA

    108 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-14949 May 30, 1960 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 469

  • G.R. Nos. L-14991-94 May 30, 1960 - JAIME T. BUENAFLOR v. CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORP.

    108 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-15044 May 30, 1960 - BELMAN COMPAÑIA INCORPORADA v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. L-15198 May 30, 1960 - EDUARDO J. JALANDONI v. NARRA

    108 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. L-15344 May 30, 1960 - JOSE R. VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-15550 May 30, 1960 - AMADO TAGULAO v. FORTUNATA PADLAN- MUNDOK

    108 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-15614 May 30, 1960 - GSISEA v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA

    108 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-15696 May 30, 1960 - ELPIDIO LLARENA v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-15792 May 30, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. ANDRES REYES

    108 Phil 513

  • G.R. Nos. L-16837-40 May 30, 1960 - EUSTAQUIO R. CAWA v. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO

    108 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-10843 May 31, 1960 - EVANGELINE WENZEL v. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC.

    108 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-11555 May 31, 1960 - DELFIN CUETO v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-11805 May 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC.

    108 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-12068 May 31, 1960 - EUFROCINA TAMISIN v. AMBROCIO ODEJAR

    108 Phil 560

  • G.R. Nos. L-13033 & L-13701 May 31, 1960 - LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-13295 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO MARIO

    108 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13523 May 31, 1960 - ANICETO MADRID v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-13578 May 31, 1960 - MARCIANO A. ROXAS v. FLORENCIO GALINDO

    108 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. L-13858 May 31, 1960 - CANUTO PAGDAÑGANAN v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    108 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 13946 May 31, 1960 - MARSMAN AND COMPANY, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-14015 May 31, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO

    108 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-14020 May 31, 1960 - MANILA LETTER CARRIER’S ASSN. v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-14201 May 31, 1960 - OLEGARIO BRITO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-14595 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. GREGORIO MONTEJO

    108 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14749 May 31, 1960 - SILVESTRE PINGOL v. AMADO C. TIGNO

    108 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-14885 May 31, 1960 - MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. MARCELINO S. MANALO

    108 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-14907 May 31, 1960 - PURA M. DE LA TORRE v. VENANCIO TRINIDAD

    108 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-15074 May 31, 1960 - CARMEN FUENTES v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA

    108 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-15122 May 31, 1960 - PAQUITO SALABSALO v. FRANCISCO ANGCOY

    108 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-15130 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLIMACO DEMIAR

    108 Phil 651