Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-17481 and L-17537-59 September 24, 1962
LIBERATA ANTONIO ESTRADA, CANUTO CENIZAN, NAZARIO DE LA CRUZ, GENARO ALVARO, ET AL., petitioners, COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS and FAUSTINO F. GALVAN, respondents.
Mejia, Ortiz and Valencia for petitioners.
LABRADOR, J.:
In an order of the court promulgated on August 15, 1961, we directed the manager or the owner of the Moncada Bonded Warehouse in Moncada, Tarlac, and respondent Faustino F. Galvan to release and deliver to petitioners Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al., the portions still remaining to be delivered to them in their shares of the palay in these cases, i.e., (a) 10% of the net produce of the first crop minus P300 and (b) 15% of the net produce of the second crop minus P200. On January 21, 1962, counsel for petitioners Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al., filed a motion asking that Faustino F. Galvan and the owner or manager of the Moncada Bonded Warehouse at Moncada, Tarlac be punished for contempt for failure to deliver the shares of the petitioners in the harvest as specified in the preceding order of the court. Respondent Faustino Galvan opposed the motion alleging that the order of the court had already been complied with by delivery of certain specified quantities of palay to the petitioners. On August 14, 1962, counsel for the petitioner filed before us a manifestation claiming that respondent Galvan and the owner or manager of the Moncada Bonded Warehouse have not delivered the exact amount to which the petitioners are entitled under the previous resolution of this Court. Considering that the issues raised in the motion to declare the respondents in contempt and the opposition thereto involve questions of fact, i.e., the determination of whether the respective shares of petition and the respondent have actually been delivered, copies of the papers already mentioned above are hereby referred to the Honorable Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations presiding at Moncada, Tarlac, to receive the evidence that the petitioners and the respondents may offer in support of their respective claims and contentions. Said court is hereby ordered to conduct the necessary hearing and make its report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of this order.1awphîl.nèt
Padilla, Bautista, Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al.
G.R. No. 17481 and l_17537-593 min read
This is a labor case, G.R. Nos. L-17481 and L-17537-59, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on September 24, 1962. The case involves petitioners Liberata Antonio Estrada, Canuto Cenizan, Nazario de la Cruz, and Genaro Alvaro, who filed a motion to declare respondents Faustino F. Galvan and the owner or manager of the Moncada Bonded Warehouse in contempt for failing to deliver their shares of palay as ordered by the court. However, since the issues raised in the motion involve questions of fact, the case was referred to the Honorable Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations presiding at Moncada, Tarlac, to conduct a hearing and make a report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of the order.
Quick Answers
- What is Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. about?
- This is a labor case, G.R. Nos. L-17481 and L-17537-59, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on September 24, 1962. The case involves petitioners Liberata Antonio Estrada, Canuto Cenizan, Nazario de la Cruz, and Genaro Alvaro, who filed a motion to declare respondents Faustino F. Galvan and the owner or manager of the Moncada Bonded Warehouse in contempt for failing to deliver their shares of palay as ordered by the court. However, since the issues raised in the motion involve questions of fact, the case was referred to the Honorable Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations presiding at Moncada, Tarlac, to conduct a hearing and make a report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of the order.
- Which court decided Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al.?
- Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- When was Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. decided?
- Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. (G.R. No. 17481 and l_17537-59) was decided on Sep 24, 1962.
- What is the citation for Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al.?
- Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al., G.R. No. 17481 and l_17537-59, Sep 24, 1962 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Case Information
- Case Number
- G.R. No. 17481 and l_17537-59
- Decision Date
- Court
- Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Jurisdiction
- Philippines
Full Decision Text
Cite This Case
Standard Citation
Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al., G.R. No. 17481 and l_17537-59, Sep 24, 1962 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
APA Style
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1962). Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. (G.R. No. 17481 and l_17537-59). Retrieved from https://legaldex.com/jurisprudence/liberata-antonio-estrada-et-al-vs-court-of-agrarian-relations
Related Cases
- Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al.G.R. No. L-17481 and L-17537 to L-17559 • Aug 15, 1961
- Liberata Antonio Estrada v. Court of Agrarian RelationsG.R. Nos. L-17481 and L-17537 to 17559 (Resolution) • Aug 15, 1961
- Estrada v. Court of Agrarian RelationsG.R. Nos. L-17481 & L-17537-59 (Resolution) • Sep 24, 1962
- Estrada v. Court of Agrarian RelationsG.R. Nos. L-17481 & L-17537-59 • Apr 28, 1962
- Alfredo Nalda, et al. vs. Judge Pastor P. ReyesA.M. No. 1988-CAR • Nov 7, 1979
- Apolonio Sumbinco vs. Court of Appeals, et al.G.R. No. L-45114 • Oct 26, 1987
Need Help Understanding This Case?
Ask our AI assistant to explain the key points, implications, or related cases.
Ask AI About This Case