[ G. R. No. 39733. June 07, 1934 ]
[ G. R. No. 39733. June 07, 1934 ]
G. R. No. 39733
[ G. R. No. 39733. June 07, 1934 ]
ROSEL LABORATORIES CO., INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. VIUDA E HIJOS DE CHUA, PIENGCO ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
D E C I S I O N
J. STEVENS-ACTING CLERK OF COURT
This court having regularly acquired jurisdiction for the trial of the above-entitled cause submitted by both parties for decision,after consideration thereof by the Court upon the record, its decision and order for the judgment having been filed on the ________18th________day of ________May________, A. D. nineteen hundred and _________thirty-four________;
By virtue thereof it is hereby adjudged and decreed that the order of the Court of the First Instance of _________Manila__________, dated the__________7th______________ day of __________January_________, nineteen hundred and ___________thirty-three____________, and from which the above-entitled appeal was taken, be, and the same is hereby, affirmed with costs of this instance against the defendant-appellant.
It is further ordered that __________theappellee__________ recover from __________the appellant__________ the sum of P__40.00__, as costs.
More in SC Decisions
- [ G.R. No. 177803. August 03, 2015 ](765 Phil. 468)
- [ G.R. No. L-23894. January 24, 1974 ](154 Phil. 246)
- G.R. NO. 160769, August 09, 2006
- G.R. No. 260983 (Formerly UDK No. 17529), February 10, 2025
- G.R. No. 200512, June 07, 2017
- [ G.R. No. 93016. July 03, 1992 ](286 Phil. 192)
- [ G.R. No. 9514. February 10, 1915 ](G.R. No. 9514)
- [ G.R. No. 229348. November 19, 2018 ](843 Phil. 461)
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.