Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > August 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27813 August 15, 1975 - ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-27813. August 15, 1975.]

ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Gadioma & Josue for Petitioner.

Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres, Solicitor Lolita O. Gal-lang and Special Attorney Gamaliel H . Mantolino for Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner a manufacturer of fertilizer, did not deduct the cost of the locally purchased pyrite from the gross sales in computing the 7% sales tax due on its sales under Section 186 of Internal Revenue Code until May, 1964 when upon advice of counsel, it started to do so. On June 18, 1964 petitioner filed an action for refund or tax credits of the sum of P77,310.76 alleged overpayment of sales taxes on its sales of fertilizers. After due hearing the Court of Tax Appeals rendered a decision denying petitioner’s claim.

On appeal, petitioner claimed that is entitled to deduct the cost of the locally purchased pyrite, a mineral ingredient in the manufacture of fertilizer, from its gross sales of fertilizer pursuant to (1) Section 186-A of the Tax Code granting manufacturers of articles subject to sales taxes the right to deduct the value of a tax-free product used as raw martial in the manufacture of a finished item from the gross selling price of such item, and (2) Section 188(c) which exempts the sale of minerals, like pyrite from the sale tax. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the other hand, claimed that the term "tax-free product" as used in Section 186-A refers to raw materials purchased from a tax-exempt industry established under Republic Act No. 901; that before the addition of Section 186-A to the tax code the cost of raw materials bought from a tax-exempt industry was not deductible; that pyrite is subject to mining tax hence, cannot be considered as tax-free products, that Section 186 or 189 of the Tax Code cannot be invoked because pyrite is not subject to sales tax under either sections; and that Section 188(c) cannot apply because the seller of pyrite from whom petitioner bought the same was not a lessee, concessionaire or owner of the mineral land from where pyrite was removed.

The Supreme Court held that Section 186-A and 188(c) of the Tax Code are not applicable in the case but petitioner’s claim is allowable under Section 186 of the same code. Appealed decision set aside ordering the commissioner of Internal Revenue to credits Atlas Fertilizer Corporation the sum of P77,310.76 against its current or future tax liabilities.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; SALES TAX; VALUE OF TAX-FREE PRODUCT DEDUCTED FROM THAT OF THE FINISHED ARTICLE. — Section 186 is a general provision which ordains a uniform rate of sale tax on all articles not otherwise enumerated in other sections of the Tax Code imposing a specific rate of sales tax. It also grants producers and manufacturers the right to deduct from the gross value of their finished products the cost of raw material input subject to tax under said section and section 189. This policy appears to be uniformly provided for in the other sections of the code dealing with the sale taxes. The interposition of Section 186-A among those provision of the Tax Code clearly indicates or in the very least compellingly implies but a singular legislative purpose, which is to extend (even as it limits) the applicability of Section 186-A to raw materials the sale of which is exempt from the sales tax.

2. ID.; ID.; SECTION 186-A IS NOT LIMITED IN APPLICATION TO TAX-EXEMPT INDUSTRIES. — Section 186-A of the Revenue Code which allows a manufacturer of an article subject to sales tax the right to deduct from the gross value thereof the value of a tax-free product is not limited in its application to tax-exempt industries established under Rep. Act 901, because if that were so, it would be logical to expect that Section 186-A instead of referring to "a tax free product" utilized in the manufacture of the other articles, would have proclaimed the deductibility of the value of "product of a tax exempt industry . . . utilized in manufacture or production of any article."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; SECTION 188(c) APPLIES TO MINERALS SOLD BY LESSEE, CONCESSIONAIRE OR OWNER OF LAND WHERE MINERAL IS REMOVED. — The exemption from the payment of the sales tax provided by section 188(c) of the Tax Code in favor of one who sells a mineral or mineral product applies only when this commodity is sold or exchanged by the lessee, concessionaire or owner of the mineral land from which the mineral or product is removed. On the other hand, the latter section of 186-A allows a manufacturer or producer of an article subject of the sales tax the right to deduct from the gross selling price or gross value in money thereof the value of tax-free product used in the manufacture or production of the finished article. Where therefore the manufacturer failed to show that it acquired the mineral or pyrite used in the manufacture of its product (fertilizer) from the seller under circumstances that call for the application of the exemption granted under section 188(c), the sale of said pyrite cannot be considered exempt from the sales tax, and deduction under 186-A of the cost of such pyrite from the gross selling price of fertilizer sold by the manufacturer to its customers would not be appropriate.

4. ID.; ID.; TAX POLICY IS TO IMPOSE SALES TAX ONLY ONCE ON THE ORIGINAL SALE. — Section 186 of the Revenue Code, in essence, prescribes that where an article subject to the sales tax is not among those enumerated in section 184 and 185 of the Tax Code, a tax of 7% on the gross selling price or gross value in money of the article concerned shall be collected "once only on every original sale, barter, exchange, and similar transaction" of the said article. Because of this policy of imposing the sales tax only once on the original sale, the proviso of Section 186 states correspondingly that where articles subject to tax under it "are manufactured out of articles likewise subject to tax" under Section 186 or 189 of the Tax Code, than the "total cost of such materials, as duly established shall be deductible from the gross selling price or gross value in money of such manufactured articles."cralaw virtua1aw library

5. ID.; ID.; MANUFACTURER MAY DEDUCT COST OF MATERIALS USED EVEN IF SELLER WHO IS LIABLE TO PAY SALES TAX DID NOT PAY THE SAME. — Under Section 188(c), if the seller was the lessee, owner or concessionaire of the mineral land from which it removed the pyrite that it sold to the manufacturer, then the seller is exempt from the paying any sales tax on its sales of pyrite; and any purchaser of the pyrite from such seller may deduct the purchase cost of such pyrite under the authority of Section 186-A. On the other hand, if the seller was not qualified for exemption from the sales tax on its sales of pyrite under Section 188(c) (because it was not the lessee, owner or commissioner of the mineral land from which it removed the pyrite), then the manufacturer (or any other purchaser of pyrite from the former) cannot invoke Section 186-A as the legal authority for deducting the total cost of the pyrite it purchased from the seller; However, it does not thereby follow that the manufacture (a purchaser of pyrite) is barred from deducting the purchase cost of the pyrite from the gross selling price of the manufactured article (fertilizer) sold by it. The deduction can still be made, but under the authority of Section 186. The possibility that the seller did not pay any sales tax on its sales of pyrite to the manufacturer is inapropos when it is considered that, fundamentally, the sales tax is an obligation of the seller and not of the buyer. The tax Commissioner’s recourse is against the seller not against the manufacturer, if the former did not pay any sales tax on its sales of pyrite to the manufacturer, assuming that the seller was not exempt under section 188(c) of the Tax Code from payment of sales tax on its sales of pyrite.


D E C I S I O N


CASTRO, J.:


This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in case 1521 finding no merit in the claim of the Atlas Fertilizer Corporation (hereinafter referred to as AFC) for refund of or tax credit for alleged overpayment of sales taxes.

Sometime in 1957 the fertilizer department of the Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ACMDC) was incorporated as the Atlas Fertilizer Corporation. With the approval of the Department of Finance, ACMDC transferred to AFC its tax-exemption privileges for fertilizer manufacture, a new and necessary industry under Republic Act 901. AFC enjoyed this privilege until December 31, 1962. 1

In the manufacture of fertilizer, AFC used a mineral ingredient known as pyrite, some of which it imported and some it purchased from ACMDC. AFC did not deduct the cost of the pyrite it purchased locally in computing the 7% sales tax due on its sales under Section 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code until May 1964 when, on the advice of counsel, it started to do so.

On June 18, 1964 AFC filed the present action against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for refund of or tax credit for overpayments in sales taxes on fertilizer sales made by it from June 20, 1962 to April 1964. The alleged overpayment, based on BIR data, amounts to P77,310.76.

On March 15, 1967, after due hearing, the tax court rendered its decision denying AFC’s claim.

Hence, the present recourse.

The basic issue is whether the cost of the pyrite AFC purchased from ACMDC and used in the manufacture of fertilizer may be deducted for purposes of computing the sales tax imposed by Section 186 of the Tax Code. This section pertinently reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 186. Percentage tax on sales of other articles. — There shall be levied, assessed and collected once only on every original sale, barter, exchange, and similar transaction either for nominal or valuable considerations, intended to transfer ownership of, or title to, the articles not enumerated in sections one hundred and eighty-four and one hundred and eighty-five a tax equivalent to seven per centum of the gross selling price or gross value in money of the articles so sold, bartered, exchanged, or transferred, such tax to be paid by the manufacturer or producer: Provided, That where the articles subject to tax under this section are manufactured out of materials likewise subject to tax under this section and section one hundred and eighty-nine, the total cost of such materials, as duly established, shall be deductible from the gross selling price or gross value in money of such manufactured articles. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

AFC maintains that it is entitled to deduct the cost of the pyrite it purchased from ACMDC, under the authority of Section 186-A in relation to Section 188(c) of the Tax Code. According to AFC, Section 186-A grants to a manufacturer of an article subject to the sales tax, such as fertilizer, the right to deduct the value of a tax-free product used as raw material in the manufacture of the finished item from the gross selling price of the latter, while Section 188(c) exempts the sale of minerals, like pyrite, from the sales tax. AFC argues that these two provisions of the Tax Code are applicable to its fertilizer sales because pyrite is a mineral the sale of which the Code expressly exempts from the sales tax, thereby making it a tax-free product whose value it may therefore deduct from the gross selling price of its fertilizer by virtue of Section 186-A. At all events, assuming that its pyrite purchases from ACMDC do not come within the purview of the provisions of these two sections of the Tax Code, it may still deduct the cost of its pyrite purchases from ACMDC under the authority of Section 186 (supra) of the Tax Code which provides that when an article which is subject to the payment of the sales tax under that section is used as a raw material in a manufactured article subject to tax under the same section, the total cost of such raw material is deductible from the gross selling price of the finished product for purposes of computing the sales tax on the latter.

The cited Sections 186-A and 188(c) read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 186-A. Whenever a tax-free product is utilized in the manufacture or production of any article, in the determination of the value of such finished article, the value of such tax-free product shall be deducted."cralaw virtua1aw library

"Sec. 188. Transactions and persons not subject to percentage tax. — In computing the tax imposed in sections one hundred eighty-four, one hundred eighty-five, and one hundred eighty-six, transactions in the following commodities shall be excluded:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

"(c) Minerals and mineral products when sold, bartered, or exchanged by the lessee, concessionaire, or owner of the mineral land from which removed. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, however, contends that the term "tax-free product" as used in Section 186-A has reference only to raw materials purchased from a tax-exempt industry established under R.A. 901. He argues that before the addition of Section 186-A to the Tax Code (by virtue of R.A. 2025 on June 22, 1957) the cost of raw materials purchased from tax-exempt industries was not deductible from the gross selling price of the finished product in computing the sales tax. This discouraged purchases from those industries because manufacturers preferred to use imported raw materials the total cost of which was deductible from the gross sales of their finished products as the former had been subject to sales tax prior to release from customs custody. Moreover, the pyrite which AFC purchased from ACMDC has been subject to the mining tax imposed under either Section 242 or 243 of the Tax Code and, therefore, cannot be said to constitute a "tax-free product." Neither may Section 186 be successfully invoked because pyrite is not subject to sales tax under either Section 186 or Section 189. cdi

As to the applicability of Section 188(c) (supra), the Commissioner states that the evidence on record fails to show that the pyrite in question was sold by ACMDC as a "lessee, concessionaire or owner of the mineral land from which [the mineral or mineral product was] removed."cralaw virtua1aw library

We are of the considered opinion that the submission of AFC is correct.

1. We have assiduously scrutinized the pertinent Congressional records to evaluate the merit of the argument that Section 186-A was incorporated into the Tax Code to benefit exclusively new and necessary industries established under R.A. 901, and have failed to find any indication that the policy and intent of R.A. 2025 are as pointed out by the Commissioner. A close analysis of R.A. 2025 would show that except for a section amending the tax on capital gains, that statute’s amendatory provisions are confined to Title V of the Tax Code which governs the privilege tax on businesses and occupations and, in particular, to the provisions of the said title on fixed and percentage (sales) taxes, that is, sections 180 to 189. No mention at all of R.A. 901 is made in Section 186-A; words relating the latter to the former should be found without difficulty if the two are related.

The placement of Section 186-A in the Tax Code is quite striking. Section 186 is undeniably a general provision which ordains a uniform rate of sales tax on all articles not otherwise enumerated in other sections of the Tax Code imposing a specific rate of sales tax. It also grants producers and manufacturers the right to deduct from the gross value of their finished products the cost of raw material input subject to tax under the said section and Section 189. This policy appears to be uniformly provided for in the other sections of the Code dealing with sales taxes, namely, sections 183, 184, 185 and 189. The interposition of Section 186-A among those provisions of the Tax Code clearly indicates or in the very least compellingly implies but a singular legislative purpose, which is to extend (even as it limits the applicability of) Section 186-A to raw materials the sale of which is exempt from sales tax.

In Republic Flour Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 2 we repudiated the argument that Section 186-A applies only to tax-exempt industries established under R.A. 901 as prescribed in B.I.R. Circular No. V-252 dated July 15, 1957. "Indeed," the Court said, "if the Commissioner’s definition were correct, it would be logical to expect that Section 186-A of the Tax Code (ante), instead of referring to ‘a tax-free product’ utilized in the manufacture of other articles, would have proclaimed the deductibility of the value of ‘products of a tax exempt industry . . . utilized in the manufacture or production of any article.’"

2. The Commissioner and the tax court are correct in their insistence that the exemption from the payment of the sales tax provided by Section 188(c) of the Tax Code in favor of one who sells a mineral or mineral product applies only when this commodity is sold or exchanged by the lessee, concessionaire or owner of the mineral land from which the mineral or mineral product is removed. The words used in Section 188(c) plainly and literally support this view. The evidence on record, as contended by the Commissioner and correctly sustained by the tax court, does not show that ACMDC is a lessee, concessionaire or owner of the mineral land from which the pyrite bought by the AFC was removed. For this reason, AFC is misled in invoking Section 188(c) and Section 186-A of the Tax Code. The latter section allows a manufacturer or producer of an article subject to the sales tax the right to deduct from the gross selling price or gross value in money thereof the value of a tax-free product used in the manufacture or production of the finished article. Since AFC failed to show that it acquired the pyrite in question from ACMDC under circumstances that call for the application of the exemption granted under Section 188(c), the sale of the said pyrite cannot therefore be considered exempt from the sales tax, and deduction under Section 186-A of the cost of such pyrite from the gross selling price of fertilizer sold by AFC to its customers would not be appropriate.

The non-applicability of Sections 188 and 186-A to the purchases of pyrite made by AFC from ACMDC, however, makes it obvious that ACMDC’s pyrite sales to AFC are subject to the sales tax under Section 186 of the Tax Code, pyrite not being one of the products or commodities mentioned in sections 184 and 185 3 of the Tax Code.

Section 186 (supra), in essence, prescribes that where an article subject to the sales tax is not among those enumerated in Sections 184 and 185 of the Tax Code (which impose higher rates of sales taxes on the sale of luxury and semi-luxury items, respectively), a tax of 7% on the gross selling price or gross value in money of the article concerned shall be collected "once only on every original sale, barter, exchange, and similar transaction" of the said article. Because of this policy of imposing the sales tax only once on the original sale, the proviso of Section 186 states correspondingly that where articles subject to tax under it "are manufactured out of materials likewise subject to tax" under Section 186 or 189 4 of the Tax Code, then "the total cost of such materials, as duly established, shall be deductible from the gross selling price or gross value in money of such manufactured articles."cralaw virtua1aw library

The AFC’s submission that under Section 186 of the Tax Code it may deduct the cost of its local purchases of pyrite from the gross selling price of its fertilizer wherein the said pyrite was used as an ingredient, must therefore be upheld.

To repeat, the main issue in the case at bar is whether the AFC is entitled under the Tax Code to deduct the purchase cost of the pyrite it used as ingredient in its manufacture of fertilizer for the purpose of computing the sales tax it must pay on its sales of fertilizer. In expounding their respective positions on this issue, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Court of Tax Appeals appear to have been confused by their obssessional preoccupation with the incidental matter of whether or not the ACMDC had paid a sales tax on the pyrite it had sold to the AFC; they failed to take due stock of the organic relationship among the pertinent sections and provisions of the Tax Code involved (already hereinbefore discussed), viz., Sections 186,186-A and 188(c), as well as a precept quite basic in the field of sales taxes.

Under Section 188(c), if the ACMDC was the lessee, owner or concessionaire of the mineral land from which it removed the pyrite that it had sold to the AFC, then it was exempt from paying any sales tax on its sales of pyrite. Any purchaser — such as the AFC — of pyrite from the ACMDC may deduct the purchase cost of such pyrite under the authority of Section 186-A which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Whenever a tax-free product is utilized in the manufacture or production of any article, in the determination of the value of such finished article, the value of such tax-free product shall be deducted."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the other hand, if the ACMDC was not qualified for exemption from sales tax on its sales of pyrite under Section 188(c) (because it was not the lessee, owner or concessionaire of the mineral land from which it removed the pyrite), then the AFC (or any other purchaser of pyrite from the former) cannot invoke Section 186-A as the legal authority for deducting the total cost of the pyrite it purchased from the ACMDC. However, it does not thereby follow that the AFC (a purchaser of pyrite from the ACMDC) is barred from deducting the purchase cost of the pyrite from the gross selling price of the manufactured article (fertilizer) sold by it. The deduction can still be made, but under the authority of Section 186 which pertinently reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Provided. That where the articles subject to tax under this section are manufactured out of materials likewise subject to tax under this section and section one hundred and eighty-nine, the total cost of such materials, as duly established, shall be deductible from the gross selling price or gross value in money of such manufactured articles."cralaw virtua1aw library

The inordinate attention paid by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Court of Tax Appeals to the possibility that the ACMDC did not pay any sales tax on its sales of pyrite to the AFC becomes more clearly inapropos when it is considered that, fundamentally, the sales tax is an obligation of the seller and not of the buyer. 5 The Commissioner’s recourse is against the ACMDC, and not against the AFC, if the former did not pay any sales tax on its sales of pyrite to the AFC, assuming that the ACMDC was not exempt under Section 188(c) of the Tax Code from payment of sales tax on its sales of pyrite.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is set aside. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby ordered to credit the Atlas Fertilizer Corporation in the amount of P77,310.76 against its current or future tax liabilities. No pronouncement as to costs.

Teehankee, Makasiar, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. R.A. 901 which took effect on June 20, 1953 revised R.A. 35. It granted "new and necessary industries" full exemption from direct internal revenue taxes until December 31, 1958 and gradually diminishing tax exemptions from January 1, 1959 to December 31, 1962.

2. L-25602, Feb. 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 520, 526.

3. Section 184 covers the sale of luxury items, such as jewelry, automobiles, toilet preparations (e.g., perfumes, cosmetics, essences) etc., Section 185 covers semi-luxury items such as household appliances, watches, clocks, fishing rods, suitcases, advertising devices, etc.

4. Section 189 imposes a percentage tax on proprietors or operators of rope factories, sugar centrals, coconut oil mills, dessicated coconut factories and cassava mills.

5. In this jurisdiction the settled rule is that the payment of the sales tax is an obligation alone of the seller, not the purchaser, even if in the commercial world it is a usual practice among vendors to shift all or part of the tax burden to their customers. See Abad v. Court of Tax Appeals, L-20834, L-20903, October 19, 1966, 18 SCRA 374, 385; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Rubber Co., Inc., L-19667, November 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 853; Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-19707, August 17, 1967, 20 SCRA 1056; Gil Hermanos v. Hord, 10 Phil. 218.




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






August-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-26869 August 6, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MARIANO CU UNJIENG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28398 August 6, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOHN L. MANNING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29432 August 6, 1975 - JAI-ALAI CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLAND

  • G.R. No. L-31665 August 6, 1975 - LEONARDO ALMEDA v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • G.R. No. L-38745 August 6, 1975 - LUCIA TAN v. ARADOR VALDEHUEZA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 449-MJ August 7, 1975 - PEDRO H. YARANON v. ANTONIO RUBIO

  • G.R. No. L-21161 August 7, 1975 - PACIFICA EVANGELISTA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-26428 August 7, 1975 - AMADEO H. CRUZ v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-27762 August 7, 1975 - AQUILINO C. MAULEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28329 August 7, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-35946 August 7, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20085 August 8, 1975 - PHILIPPINE TOBACCO FLUE CURING AND REDRYING CORPORATION v. RIZALINO PABLO

  • G.R. No. L-29130 August 8, 1975 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DIONISIO MIRANG

  • G.R. No. L-32495 August 13, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO S. MOISES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27813 August 15, 1975 - ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-26321 August 19, 1975 - CITY OF CEBU, ET AL. v. JOSE M. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-32387 August 19, 1975 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. NDC EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40552 August 20, 1975 - DIOSDADO T. ABUGOTAL v. MEYNARDO A. TIRO

  • G.R. No. L-27916 August 21, 1975 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-28566 August 21, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO OGAPAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40970 August 21, 1975 - IN RE: PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. TEOTIMO TANGONAN

  • G.R. No. L-29776 August 27, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ECHALUCE, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. P-165 August 28, 1975 - DANIEL GUTIERREZ v. VIRGINIA G. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20869 August 28, 1975 - ALICIA O. ARCEGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27410 August 28, 1975 - DINA TUZON v. CESAR C. CRUZ

  • A.M. No. P-147 August 29, 1975 - ANDRES SUCK v. ROLANDO DIAZ

  • A.C. No. 1162 August 29, 1975 - IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVO

  • G.R. No. L-19620 August 29, 1975 - IN RE: OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF TIRSO LORENZO v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22554 August 29, 1975 - DELFIN LIM, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO PONCE DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22782 August 29, 1975 - IGNACIO GONE, ET AL. v. DISTRICT ENGINEER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26762 August 29, 1975 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-27204 August 29, 1975 - CASIMIRO V. ARKONCEL v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BASILAN CITY

  • G.R. No. L-27771 August 29, 1975 - MAXIMO CALALANG, ET AL. v. JUAN DE BORJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29724 August 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO TIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32534 August 29, 1975 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION-AFL-VIMCONTU v. ANTONIO D. CINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32641 August 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAGUIA UNDONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37034 August 29, 1975 - JACQUELINE INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-38076-80 August 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39087 August 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO Q. DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40018 August 29, 1975 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. JORGE R. COQUIA

  • G.R. No. L-40098 August 29, 1975 - ANTONIO LIM TANHU, ET AL. v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40474 August 29, 1975 - CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., INC. v. PASCUAL A. BERCILLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40486 August 29, 1975 - PAULINO PADUA, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. ROBLES, ET AL.