Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > April 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17114 April 29, 1961 - JULIA M. NEIBERT v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17114. April 29, 1961.]

JULIA M. NEIBERT, in her capacity as Administratrix of the deceased Henry E. Neibert, Petitioner, v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of the City of Zamboanga, VICENTE NEIBERT, TEOFILA ENRIQUEZ, and LUCILLE N. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.

T. de los Santos for Petitioner.

Jose B. Enriquez for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; ORDERS ISSUED AFTER JUDGE WHO HEARD CASE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER COURT; VALIDITY OF. — On June 12, 1958, the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, then presided by Judge Leovigildo B. Mijares, issued 3 orders approving respondents’ claims against the intestate estate and ordering petitioner-administratrix to pay respondents. These orders were signed at Masbate, Masbate, to which Judge Mijares had been transferred, and received and promulgated by the Clerk of Court only on August 8, 1958. On June 19, 1958, respondent Judge Gregorio D. Montejo became the incumbent judge of the Court. On August 6, 1958, respondent Judge, being under the impression that said 3 orders of Judge Mijares were "technically defective, having been promulgated on August 8, 1958, when said judge has ceased to be judge of the court", issued an order ratifying the aforesaid 3 orders. Petitioner, instead of appealing from the order of respondent judge, appealed from the 3 orders of Judge Mijares. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the order of August 16, 1958 of respondent Judge Montejo is "the only appealable and standing order" regarding the approval of said claims. Held: The orders of Judge Mijares are valid orders, having been issued by said Judge who heard the claims, while he was still incumbent judge of the court. Consequently, there was no necessity for respondent Judge Montejo’s issuance of the order of August 16, 1958 ratifying said 3 orders. For it is elementary that what is valid need not be ratified. And since petitioner had timely appealed from said orders, respondent Judge clearly committed a reversible error in dismissing petitioner’s appeal and granting execution of the order of August 16, 1958.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


Petitioner Julia M. Neibert, administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased Henry E. Neibert in Special Case No. 414 of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City has filed this petition for mandamus and certiorari, seeking to compel the approval and elevation of her record on appeal and the review of certain orders of respondent Judge presiding said court.

Pursuant to a "notice to creditors" given by the clerk of said court in the aforementioned intestate proceedings respondents Vincent C. Neibert, Teofila E. Neibert, and Lucille N. Enriquez filed their claims against the estate on June 22, August 10, and October 22, 1956 for P9,773.10, P7,000.00, and P33,099.20 respectively. For reasons not disclosed by the records, petitioner-administratrix filed no answer or opposition to said claims, as required under Section 10, Rule 87, of the Rules of Court. Said claims were set for hearing on June 2, 1958, on which date, petitioner-administratrix appeared and asked permission to file a written opposition to said claims, which the court denied, on the ground that almost 2 years had already elapsed from the time they were presented and no opposition was filed. Thereafter, the proceedings supposed to be had on that day were transferred to the following day, June 3. The records do not show what took place on June 3 (See Manifestation of Stenographer Villar, Annex 7).

On June 12,1958, the court (presided by Judge Leovigildo B. Mijares) issued 3 separate orders approving said claims and ordering petitioner-administratrix to pay respondents within 30 days from notice of said orders. 1

In the meantime, and prior to the receipt by the parties of said orders, Petitioner, on July 7, 1958, filed a written opposition to said claims. On July 8, 1958, due to said written opposition, the clerk of court set the hearing of the claims and the opposition for August 25, 1958. On July 28, 1958, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the opposition, on the grounds that (1) it was filed beyond the reglementary period; (2) it was filed without leave of court; and (3) it was filed after the claims had already been heard and submitted to the court for resolution. Said motion to dismiss the opposition was set for hearing on August 16, 1958.

On August 8, 1958, pending the hearing of said motion to dismiss, the clerk of court and the parties received copy of the aforementioned 3 orders approving respondents’ claims and ordering petitioner to pay the same.

On August 16, 1958, respondents’ said motion to dismiss the opposition was heard. At the hearing, petitioner informed the court (presided this time by respondent Judge Gregorio D. Montejo) that in view of the fact that former Judge Mijares had already approved the claims of respondents, hearing of respondents’ motion to dismiss the opposition to said claims was no longer necessary. Respondent Judge, being under the impression that said 3 orders dated June 12, 1958 of Judge Mijares were "technically defective", having been promulgated on August 8, 1958, when said judge had ceased to be judge of the court 2 issued on the same date (August 16) an order of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ORDER

"Inasmuch as the claim is approved, let the order of approval stand.

"SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

On August 30, 1958, Petitioner, instead of appealing from the above-quoted order of respondent Judge, appealed from said 3 orders of Judge Mijares dated June 12, 1958, by filing a notice of appeal. On September 1, 1958, petitioner filed her record on appeal.

On October 29, 1958, respondents filed 2 motions, to wit: (1) motion to dismiss the appeal, and (2) motion for execution of the order of August 16, 1958, alleging as grounds thereof that the appeal taken by petitioner from the 3 orders of Judge Mijares of June 12, 1958 has no legal basis, because the order of August 16, 1958 of respondent Judge Montejo is "the only appealable and standing order" regarding the approval of said claims. To said motions, Petitioner, on December 26, 1958, filed an opposition. On January 17, 1959, after hearing the oral arguments of counsel for the parties, the court directed them to file their respective memorandum within 10 days therefrom. Respondents filed their memorandum, but petitioner did not. On August 5, 1959, the court issued an order dismissing the appeal and ordering execution of the order of August 16, 1958.

On August 14, 1959, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of said order, to which, respondents filed an opposition on June 10, 1960. On June 11, 1960, respondent Judge denied said motion for reconsideration in an order which partly reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of the foregoing incidents, the Court has arrived at the following conclusions, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the Court, in hearing the three claims, thru Honorable Judge Leovigildo Mijares on June 2, 1958, notice of which was duly served upon the administratrix (herein petitioner) and who filed no opposition thereto, the Court acted within its power, authority and discretion (Section 2, Rule 87, Rules of Court), and whatever irregularities, if any there was, in the filing of said claims, are considered waived by the Administratrix: first, by submitting herself to the hearing and discretion of the Court to pass upon the said claim without objection, and second, by not filing her answer or opposition against the merits of said claims before or during said hearing. The three orders issued by Honorable Judge Leovigildo Mijares were, therefore, in order.

"2. That, however, by virtue of the orders rendered by this Court on August 16, 1958, confirming and ratifying motu propio the approval of each and every one of the three claims made within the statutory period for the Court to amend, modify, confirm or ratify its previous order, the order issued by Honorable Judge Leovigildo Mijares, then, ceased to be final and an appealable order. The final and appealable order rendered, therefore, by this Court governing the approval of the claim, is the order of August 16, 1958. The case cited by claimants in their memorandum is, in the opinion of this Court, applicable and proper in the present case.’An order annulling a decree in a land registration case on the ground of fraud, is not final, for it leaves something to be done in the trial for a complete disposition of the case therein’ (Villados v. San Pedro, 49 Phil., 596); But if the order, instead of annulling ratifies the decree, there can be no doubt that it is final and appealable (Santos v. Pecson, 79 Phil., 261; 45 Off. Gaz., 1278). Since, no appeal has been taken against said order of August 16, 1958, the same is now final and executory.

"3. That since the answer or opposition of the Administratrix against the claims was filed beyond the time prescribed by law (Sec. 10, Rule 87, Rules of Court), said opposition or answer cannot be considered part of the records of these proceedings, much less of the record on appeal of the Administratrix.

"4. That there being no answer or opposition against the merits of the claims as it may be considered withdrawn by virtue of the manifestation of counsel for the Administratrix quoted above, the notice to creditors included in the record on appeal like the opposition or answer, which have all been objected to by claimants, cannot be considered part of the record on appeal and, as such, should he detached therefrom, as it is hereby so ordered. Consequently, there having no basis for an appeal to the order of this Court dated June 12, 1958, because without answer or opposition against the merits of the claims, there could be no issues to be considered or passed upon by the appellate Court.

"WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied, and the order dismissing the appeal is hereby confirmed and ratified.

"Let an order of execution be issued against the Administratrix for the satisfaction of the payment of the three claims approved by this Court in its said order of August 16, 1958.

"IT IS SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

On June 28, 1960, petitioner filed with us this present petition for mandamus and certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain respondent Judge from further proceeding with the case. In due time, we issued the preliminary injunction prayed for, upon petitioner’s filing a bond of P5,000.00.

There is merit in the petition.

It appears that the 3 orders dated June 12, 1958 (of then incumbent Judge Mijares) approving the claims of respondents against the intestate estate and ordering petitioner administratrix to pay the same, are valid orders, having been issued by said Judge Mijares who heard the claims, while he was still incumbent judge of the court. Consequently, there was no necessity for respondent Judge Montejo’s issuance of the order of August 16, 1958 ratifying said 3 orders dated June 12, 1958 of Judge Mijares. 3 Respondent Judge Montejo’s issuance of said ratifying order is, to say the least, superfluity. For it is elementary that what is valid need not be ratified. Said ratifying order did not make said 3 valid orders of June 12, 1958 any more valid than they already were, much less, did it make them invalid. And, since petitioner had timely appealed from said orders by filing her notice of appeal on August 30, 1958, her record on appeal on September 1, 1958, and deposited the required appeal bond of P60.00 (within the reglementary period of 30 days from notice of said orders on August 8, 1958), respondent Judge Montejo clearly committed a reversible error in issuing the order in question (of June 11,1960) dismissing petitioner’s appeal and granting execution of the order of August 16, 1958.

WHEREFORE, petitioner’s petition is hereby granted and the preliminary injunction heretofore issued by this Court made permanent. The order of the trial court dated June 11, 1960 complained of is set aside and respondent Judge commanded to approve petitioner’s appeal from the orders of June 12, 1958, and to immediately elevate the records of the case to the Court of Appeals for determination in accordance with law. With costs against the respondents. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. These orders were signed on June 12, 1958 at Masbate, Masbate to which Judge Mijares had been transferred, and received and promulgated by the Clerk of Court of the First Instance of Zamboanga City only on August 8, 1988.

2. Respondent Judge Montejo became incumbent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City on June 19, 1958 7 days after then incumbent Judge Mijares had signed the said 3 orders of June 12, 1958.

3. "Whenever a judge appointed or assigned in any province or branch of a court in a province shall leave the province by transfer or assignment to another court of equal jurisdiction without having decided a case totally heard by him and which was duly argued or opportunity given for argument to the parties or their counsel, it shall be lawful for him to prepare and sign his decision in said case anywhere within the Philippines and send the same by registered mail to the clerk of the Court to be filed in the court as of the date when the same was received by the clerk, in the same manner as if the judge had been present in the court to direct the filing of the judgment: Provided, however, That if a case has been heard only in part, the Supreme Court, upon petition of any of the parties to the case and recommendation of the respective district judge, may also authorize the judge who has partly heard the case to continue hearing and to decide said case notwithstanding his transfer or appointment to another court of equal jurisdiction." See 51, par. 2, Judiciary Act, as amended.)




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






April-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 439 April 12, 1961 - LEDESMA DE JESUS-PARAS v. QUINCIANO VAILOCES

  • G.R. No. L-14158 April 12, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14324 April 12, 1961 - IN RE: WILLIAM LI YAO v. NARCISA B. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15705 April 15, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DY CHAY

  • G.R. No. L-15861 April 15, 1961 - LIM GIOK v. BATAAN CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-13325 April 20, 1961 - SANTIAGO GANCAYCO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15102 April 20, 1961 - ALFREDO GARCHITORENA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15950 April 20, 1961 - GERVACIO DAUZ v. FELIPE ELEOSIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16235 April 20, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS MAGDALUYO

  • G.R. No. L-16473 April 20, 1961 - FELISA QUIJANO v. JACINTO TAMETA

  • G.R. No. L-16739 April 20, 1961 - VICENTE PENUELA, ET AL. v. ERNESTO HORNADA

  • G.R. No. L-16777 April 20, 1961 - QUINTIN CHAN v. JUAN B. ESPE

  • G.R. No. L-14711 April 22, 1961 - SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE & MANILA RAILROAD CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-10367 April 25, 1961 - MARY MCD. BACHRACH v. PHILIPPINE TRUST CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12602 April 25, 1961 - LUIS PINEDA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12918 April 25, 1961 - SANTIAGO BALMONTE v. JULIAN MARCELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15123 April 25, 1961 - GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC. v. SATURNINO C. PINOON

  • G.R. No. L-15957 April 25, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ESPIRITU

  • G.R. No. L-16051 April 25, 1961 - FERNANDO GOCHOCO, ET AL. v. CHANG HIOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16733 April 25, 1961 - MANUELA MENDOZA ET AL. v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD CO.

  • G.R. No. L-17046 April 25, 1961 - JUAN ADUAN, ET AL. v. PANTALEON ALBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11406 April 26, 1961 - MARIANO J. SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-12822 April 26, 1961 - LIM BUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-12836 April 26, 1961 - MANILA TRADING AND SUPPLY CO. v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13143 April 26, 1961 - DEMETRIO CARPENA, ET AL. v. LUCIANO MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14756 April 26, 1961 - EMILIANO BALADJAY v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15381 and 82 April 26, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA MAYDIN

  • G.R. No. L-15410 April 26, 1961 - MANUEL M. ANTONIO v. MAURO SAMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15415 April 26, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO ABACITE, ET AL. .

  • G.R. No. L-15700 April 26, 1961 - CRESENCIA VDA. DE BAKIT v. VERONICO ASPERIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15872 April 26, 1961 - CITY OF MANILA v. ANTONIA EBAY

  • G.R. No. L-16234 April 26, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANITO FETALVERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16596 April 26, 1961 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. CITY OF DAGUPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16659 April 26, 1961 - ALFREDO REYES v. JOSE PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-16878 April 26, 1961 - JUAN SANCHEZ v. OSCAR DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. L-16963 April 26, 1961 - ROXAS Y CIA v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12236 April 28, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAULIO BERSALONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14793 April 28, 1961 - PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENT CHURCH v. JUANA MATEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15065 April 28, 1961 - CESAR D. MILITAR v. VENTURA TORCILLERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15139 April 28, 1961 - FELIX DE CASTRO, JR., ET AL. v. EMITERIO M. CASTAÑEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15877 April 28, 1961 - JOVENAL R. FERNANDEZ v. TAN TIONG TICK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15952 April 28, 1961 - SYBIL SAMSON, ET AL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16355-56 April 28, 1961 - IGNACIO GONZALES v. JOSE M. SANTOS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16560 April 28, 1961 - TOMAS BENAZA, ET AL. v. ZOILO BONILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10763 April 29, 1961 - DELFIN YAMBAO v. ANGELINA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11084 April 29, 1961 - ALEJANDRO QUEMUEL, ET AL. v. ANGEL S. OLAES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11499 April 29, 1961 - IN RE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GO BON LEE

  • G.R. No. L-11639 April 29, 1961 - DANIEL DE LEON v. JOAQUIN HENSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11765 April 29, 1961 - DAMASO DESCUTIDO, ET AL. v. JACINTO BALTAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12888 April 29, 1961 - R. F. NAVARRO v. SUGAR PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-13252 April 29, 1961 - CONSUELO TAN VDA. DE ZALDARRIAGA v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13515 April 29, 1961 - PAZ BACABAC v. VICENTE F. DELFIN, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13976 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO Z. OBALDO

  • G.R. No. L-13994 April 29, 1961 - VALERIO P. TRIA v. WENCESLAO A. LIRAG

  • G.R. No. L-14146 April 29, 1961 - NG LIAM KENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14220 April 29, 1961 - DOMINGO E. LEONOR v. FRANCISCO SYCIP

  • G.R. No. L-14421 April 29, 1961 - GUAGUA ELECTRIC LIGHT PLANT COMPANY, INC. v. COLLE CTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14603 April 29, 1961 - RICARDO LACERNA, ET AL. v. AGATONA PAURILLO VDA. DE CORCINO

  • G.R. No. L-14712 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO CORTES

  • G.R. No. L-14783 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL P. AMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14871 April 29, 1961 - FLORENCIA M. GUANCO v. SEGUNDO MONTEBLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14969 April 29, 1961 - LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION v. CEFERINO ASCUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15014 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-15171 April 29, 1961 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15225 April 29, 1961 - C. G. NAZARIO & SONS, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15347 April 29, 1961 - GENERAL BUS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. GREGORIO CUNANAN

  • G.R. No. L-15386 April 29, 1961 - JOSE L. UY v. PACITA UY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15394 April 29, 1961 - CESARIO DE LEON, ET AL. v. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15445 April 29, 1961 - IN RE: FLORANTE C. TIMBOL v. JOSE C. CANO

  • G.R. Nos. L-15490-93 April 29, 1961 - CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORPORATION v. JAIME T. BUENAFLOR

  • G.R. No. L-15506 April 29, 1961 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15515 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER M. PERETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15564 April 29, 1961 - PASCUAL STA. ANA v. EULALIO MENLA

  • G.R. No. L-15739 April 29, 1961 - EMILIANO LACSON, SR. v. JACINTO DELGADO

  • G.R. No. L-15768 April 29, 1961 - TALIM QUARRY COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. GAVINO BARTOLA BERNARDO ABELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15775 April 29, 1961 - TAN YU CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15960 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN REGINALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15973 April 29, 1961 - PERPETUA GARGOLLO v. ALFREDO DUERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16071 April 29, 1961 - RUFINO O. ABUDA v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-16137 April 29, 1961 - VIRGINIA AMOR, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16138 April 29, 1961 - DIOSDADO C. TY v. FIRST NATIONAL SURETY & ASSURANCE CO, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16221 April 29, 1961 - RODOLFO GERONIMO v. MUNICIPALlTY OF CABA, LA UNION

  • G.R. No. L-16422 April 29, 1961 - JUSTINA C. SANTOS, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16448 April 29, 1961 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY v. HONESTO G. NICANDRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16509 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16535 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANTALEON ELPEDES

  • G.R. No. L-17015 April 29, 1961 - GEORGE H. EVANS, ETC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17114 April 29, 1961 - JULIA M. NEIBERT v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-17202 April 29, 1961 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. v. COTO LABOR UNION (NLU), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17377 April 29, 1961 - FRANCISCO LAGUNILLA v. JUAN O. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18359 April 29, 1961 - CALIXTO DUQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.