ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

Tweet

Tweet

chanrobles.com

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > May 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-8967. May 31, 1956.]
ANASTACIO VIAA, Petitioner, vs. ALEJO AL-LAGADAN and FILOMENA PIGA, Respondents.:

Search

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-8967. May 31, 1956.]

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ANASTACIO VIAA, Pe##oner, vs. ALEJO AL-LAGADAN and FILOMENA PIGA, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, J.:
Pe##oner Anastacio Viaa owned the shing sailboat Magkapa8d, which, in the night of
September 3, 1948, sunk in the waters between the province of Bataan and the island of
Corregidor, as a consequence of a collision with the USS TINGLES, a vessel of the U.S. Navy.
Inasmuch as Alejandro Al-Lagadan, a member of the crew of the Magkapa8d, disappeared
with the craT, his parents, Respondent Alejo Al-Lagadan and Filomena Piga, led the
corresponding claim for compensa8on under Act No. 3428. ATer appropriate proceedings, a
Referee of the Workmens Compensa8on Commission rendered a decision, dated February 23,
1953:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1. Ordering Mr. Anastacio Viaa to pay the above-named claimants through the Workmens
Compensa8on Commission, Manila, the sum of P1,560 in lump sum with interest at 6 per cent
from September 3, 1948 un8l fully paid; and.
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

To pay the sum of P16 to the Workmens Compensa8on Commission as costs.

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

Said decision was, on pe88on for review led by Viaa, armed by the Workmens
Compensa8on Commissioner, on or about October 22, 1954, with addi8onal fee of P5.00.
Said Commissioner, having subsequently denied a reconsidera8on of this ac8on, Viaa has
brought the maber to us, for review by cer8orari, upon the ground that this case does not fall
within the purview of Act No. 3428, because the gross income of his business for the year 1947
was allegedly less than P10,000, and because Alejandro Al-Lagadan was, at the 8me of his
death, his (Pe##oners) industrial partner, not his employee.
The rst ground is untenable, Pe##oner not having invoked it before the rendi8on of the
Referees decision on February 23, 1953. The objec8on to the applica8on of Act No. 3428, upon
said ground, was made for the rst 8me when Pe##oner sought a review of said decision by the
Workmens Compensa8on Commissioner. The non- applicability of said Act to employers whose
gross income does not reach P20,000 is, however, a maber of defense, which cannot be availed
of unless pleaded in the employers answer to the claim for compensa8on led by the
employee or his heirs. Pe##oner herein having failed to do so, said defense may not now be
entertained (Rolan vs. Perez, 63 Phil., 80, 85-86).

ChanRobles Intellectual Property

Division

As regards the second ground, Pe##oner maintains, contrary to the nding of the Referee and
said Commissioner, that the deceased was his industrial partner, not employee. In this
connec8on, it is alleged in paragraph (6) of the pe88on:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

That the prac8ce observed then and now in engaging the services of crewmen of sailboats
plying between Mindoro and Manila is on a partnership basis, to wit: that the owner of the
vessel, on one hand receives one-half of the earnings of the sailboat aTer deduc8ng the
expenses for the maintenance of the crew, the other half is divided pro rata among the
members of the crew, the patron or captain receiving four parts, the piloto or next in
command three parts, the wheelsman or 8monel 1 1/2 parts and the rest of the members of
the crew one part each, as per Annex B hereof.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

It appears that, before rendering his aforemen8oned decision, the Referee requested Mr.
Manuel O. Morente, an aborney of the Workmens Compensa8on Commission, to look into
and inquire and determine the method of and the basis of engaging the services of crewmen
for sailboats (batel) of twenty (20) tons or more plying between Manila and Mariveles and
moored along Manila North Harbor, and that, thereaTer, said Aby. Morente reported:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The basis of engaging the services of crewmen of a batel is determined in accordance with the
contract executed between the owner and the patron. The contract commonly followed is on a
share basis aTer deduc8ng all the expenses incurred on the voyage. One half goes to the owner
of the batel and the other half goes to the patron and the members of the crew and divided
among themselves on a share basis also in accordance with their agreement with the patron
gekng the lions share. The hiring of the crew is done by the patron himself. Usually, when a
patron enters into a contract with the owner of the batel, he has a crew ready with him. (Italics
supplied.)
In sustaining the Referees nding to the eect that the deceased was an employee of Viaa,
the Workmens Compensa8on Commissioner said:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The trial referee found that there was an employer-employee rela8on between the
Respondent and the deceased, Alejandro Al-Lagadan, and the share which the deceased
received at the end of each trip was in the nature of wages which is dened under sec8on 39
of the Compensa8on Act. This is so because such share could be reckoned in terms of money. In
other words, there existed the rela8on of employer and employee between the Respondent
and Alejandro Al-Lagadan at the 8me of the labers death.
We believe that the trial referee did not err in nding the deceased an employee of the
Respondent. We cite the following cases which illustrate the point at issue:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The ocers and crews of whaling and other shing vessels who are to receive certain
propor8ons of produce of the voyage in lieu of wages; (Rice vs. Aus8n, 17 Mass. 206; 2Y &
C. 61); Captains of merchant ships who, instead of wages, receive shares in the prots of the
adventure; (4 Maule & C. 240); or who take vessels under an agreement to pay certain
charges and receive a share of the earnings; (Tagard vs. Loring, 16 Mass. 336, 8 Am. Dec. 140;
Winsor vs. Cubs, 7 Greenl. Me. 261) have generally been held not to be partners with the
Respondent, and the like. Running a steamboat on shares does not make the owners partners in
respect to the vessel (The Daniel Koine, 35 Fed. 785); so of an agreement between two
par8es to farm on shares; (Hooloway vs. Brinkley, 42 Ga. 226); A seaman who is to receive
pay in propor8on to the amount of sh caught is not a partner; (Holdren vs. French, 68 Me.
241); sharing prots in lieu of wages is not a partnership. There is no true contribu8on;
(Crawford vs. Aus8n, 34 Md. 49; Whitehill vs. Shickle, 43 Mo. 538; Sankey vs. Iron Works,
44 Ga. 228.) (Italics supplied.)
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan

roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan

roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan

roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan

roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan

roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan

roblesvirtualawlibrary

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.

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

In other words, in the opinion of the Referee, as well as of said Commissioner, the mere fact
that Alejandros share in the understanding could be reckoned in terms of money, suced to
characterize him as an employee of Viaa. We do not share this view. Neither can we accept,
however, Pe##oners theory to the eect that the deceased was his partner, not an employee,
simply because he (the deceased) shared in the prots, not in the losses. In determining the
existence of employer-employee rela8onship, the following elements are generally considered,
namely: (1) the selec8on and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3)
the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employees conduct although the
laber is the most important element (35 Am. Jur. 445). Assuming that the share received by the
deceased could partake of the nature of wages on which we need not, and do not, express
our view and that the second element, therefore, exists in the case at bar, the record does
not contain any specic data regarding the third and fourth elements.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

With respect to the rst element, the facts before us are insucient to warrant a reasonable
conclusion, one way or the other. On the one hand, Aby. Morente said, in his aforemen8oned
report, that the contract commonly followed is on a share basis The hiring of a crew is done by
the patron himself. Usually, when a patron enters into a contract with the owner of the batel,
he has a crew ready with him. This statement suggests that the members of the crew are
chosen by the patron, seemingly, upon his sole responsibility and authority. It is noteworthy,
however, that said report referred to a prac8ce commonly and usually observed in a given
place. The record is silent on whether such prac8ce had been followed in the case under
considera8on. More important s8ll, the language used in said report may be construed as
in8ma8ng, not only that the patron selects and engages the crew, but, also, that the
members thereof are subject to his control and may be dismissed by him. To put it dierently,
the literal import of said report is open to the conclusion that the crew has a contractual
rela8on, not with the owner of the vessel, but with the patron, and that the laber, not the
former, is either their employer or their partner.
cralaw

[G.R. No. L-7261. May 11, 1956.] THE REGISTER OF

DEEDS, PASIG, RIZAL, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. HEIRS
OF HI CAIJI and ELISEO YMZON, OppositorsAppellants.
[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
VIAS and GUILLERMO ORBETA, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Upon the other hand, the very allega8ons of the pe88on show otherwise, for Pe##oner
explicitly averred therein that the deceased Alejandro Al-Lagadan was his industrial partner.
This implies that a contract of partnership existed between them and that, accordingly, if the
crew was selected and engaged by the patron, the laber did so merely as agent or
representa8ve of Pe##oner herein. Again, if Pe##oner were a partner of the crew members,
then neither the former nor the patron could control or dismiss the laber.

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.

In the interest of jus8ce and equity, and considering that a decision on the merits of the issue
before us may establish an important precedent, it would be beber to remand the case to the
Workmens Compensa8on Commission for further evidence and ndings on the following
ques8ons: (1) who selected the crew of the Magkapa8d and engaged their services; (2) if
selected and engaged by the patron, did the laber act in his own name and for his own
account, or on behalf and for the account of Viaa; (3) could Viaa have refused to accept any
of the crew members chosen and engaged by the patron; (4) did Pe##oner have authority
to determine the 8me when, the place where and/or the manner or condi8ons in or under
which the crew would work; and (5) who could dismiss its members.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

Wherefore, let the case be remanded to the Workmens Compensa8on Commission, for further
proceedings in conformity with this decision, without special pronouncement as to costs. SO
ORDERED.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., BauQsta Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., and
Endencia, JJ., concur.

GR GR
Law GR
Case GR
Al VS
Ads by Google Company Law Court Case Law Cases Defendant
Ads by Google
Law Cases Defendant
At Law
Mass Law
Ads by Google

Back to Home | Back to Main

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

QUICK SEARCH

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

[G.R. No. L-8133. May 18, 1956.] MANUEL C.

MANARANG and LUCIA D. MANARANG, PetitionersAppellants, vs. MACARIO M. OFILADA, Sheriff of the
City of Manila and ERNESTO ESTEBAN, RespondentsAppellees.

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

[G.R. No. L-8147. May 18, 1956.] ALFONSO

BACSARPA, VENANCIO LAUSA and FERNANDO MACAS,
Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

[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.

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

[G.R. No. L-8101. May 18, 1956.] MARIANO DE

GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL., 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, PetitionersAppellants, 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

Main Indices of the Library --->

Go!

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, DefendantAppellant.
[G.R. No. L-8292. May 23, 1956.] RED LINE
TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. TEODOLFO
ASCAO, 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, DefendantAppellant.
[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 WORKMENS
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 PINEDAS 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 LAMONDAA, 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, DefendantAppellant.
[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, PetitionersAppellants, 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,
GUIGA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, ROSALIA VILLA-ABRILLE
LIM, ADOLFO VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, SAYA VILLAABRILLE LIM, LUISA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, and
CANDELARIA
VILLA-ABRILLE
TAN,
PetitionersAppellees, 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 CASTAEDA, 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 VIAA,
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.

Copyright 1998 - 20161998 - 2016 ChanRobles Publishing Company

| Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

| chanrobles.com

RED