Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 155223 April 4, 2007
BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS, rpr!"#$ %& 'r A##or"&(i"()*+#, MARIE F. FU,ITA, Petitioner,
vs.
F-ORA SAN .IEGO(SISON, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
AUSTRIA(MARTINE/, J.:
"efore us is a Petition for Revie# on Certiorari filed b$ "obie Rose V. %rias represented b$ her
&ttorne$'in'fact, Marie Re(ine %. %u)ita *petitioner+ see,in( to annul the Decision
-
dated .une -/, 0110
and the Resolution
0
dated Septe2ber --, 0110 of the !ourt of &ppeals *!&+ in !&'3.R. !V No.
40/56.
Petitioner is the o#ner of a house and lot located at No. 4/6 "atan(as ast, &$ala &laban(,
Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, #hich she ac7uired fro2 Island Masters Realt$ and Develop2ent
!orporation *IMRD!+ b$ virtue of a Deed of Sale dated Nov. -8, -661.
5
The propert$ is covered b$
T!T No. -8/-95 of the Re(ister of Deeds of Ma,ati in the na2e of IMRD!.
:
On Dece2ber 9, -661, petitioner, as the %IRST P&RT;, and Dra. %lora San Die(o'Sison *respondent+,
as the S!OND P&RT;, entered into a Me2orandu2 of &(ree2ent
4
over the propert$ #ith the
follo#in( ter2s<
NO=, THR%OR, for and in consideration of the su2 of THR MI>>ION PSOS
*P5,111,111.11+ receipt of #hich is hereb$ ac,no#led(ed b$ the %IRST P&RT; fro2 the S!OND
P&RT;, the parties have a(reed as follo#s<
-. That the S!OND P&RT; has a period of Si? *8+ 2onths fro2 the date of the e?ecution of
this contract #ithin #hich to notif$ the %IRST P&RT; of her intention to purchase the
afore2entioned parcel of land to(ether #ithin *sic+ the i2prove2ents thereon at the price of
SI@ MI>>ION %OAR HANDRD THOAS&ND PSOS *P8,:11,111.11+. Apon notice to the
%IRST P&RT; of the S!OND P&RT;Bs intention to purchase the sa2e, the latter has a period
of another si? 2onths #ithin #hich to pa$ the re2ainin( balance of P5.: 2illion.
0. That prior to the si? 2onths period (iven to the S!OND P&RT; #ithin #hich to decide
#hether or not to purchase the above'2entioned propert$, the %IRST P&RT; 2a$ still offer the
said propert$ to other persons #ho 2a$ be interested to bu$ the sa2e provided that the a2ount
of P5,111,111.11 (iven to the %IRST P&RT; "; TH S!OND P&RT; shall be paid to the
latter includin( interest based on prevailin( co2pounded ban, interest plus the a2ount of the
sale in e?cess of P9,111,111.11 should the propert$ be sold at a price 2ore than P9 2illion.
5. That in case the %IRST P&RT; has no other bu$er #ithin the first si? 2onths fro2 the
e?ecution of this contract, no interest shall be char(ed b$ the S!OND P&RT; on the P5
2illion ho#ever, in the event that on the si?th 2onth the S!OND P&RT; #ould decide not to
purchase the afore2entioned propert$, the %IRST P&RT; has a period of another si? 2onths
#ithin #hich to pa$ the su2 of P5 2illion pesos provided that the said a2ount shall earn
co2pounded ban, interest for the last si? 2onths onl$. Ander this circu2stance, the a2ount of
P5 2illion (iven b$ the S!OND P&RT; shall be treated as CaD loan and the propert$ shall be
considered as the securit$ for the 2ort(a(e #hich can be enforced in accordance #ith la#.
? ? ? ?.
8
Petitioner received fro2 respondent t#o 2illion pesos in cash and one 2illion pesos in a post'dated
chec, dated %ebruar$ 0/, -661, instead of -66-, #hich rendered said chec, stale.
9
Petitioner then (ave
respondent T!T No. -8/-95 in the na2e of IMRD! and the Deed of &bsolute Sale over the propert$
bet#een petitioner and IMRD!.
Respondent decided not to purchase the propert$ and notified petitioner throu(h a letter
/
dated March
01, -66-, #hich petitioner received onl$ on .une --, -66-,
6
re2indin( petitioner of their a(ree2ent that
the a2ount of t#o 2illion pesos #hich petitioner received fro2 respondent should be considered as a
loan pa$able #ithin si? 2onths. Petitioner subse7uentl$ failed to pa$ respondent the a2ount of t#o
2illion pesos.
On &pril -, -665, respondent filed #ith the Re(ional Trial !ourt *RT!+ of Manila, a co2plaint
-1
for
su2 of 2one$ #ith preli2inar$ attach2ent a(ainst petitioner. The case #as doc,eted as !ivil !ase No.
65'84589 and raffled to "ranch 51. Respondent alle(ed the fore(oin( facts and in addition thereto
averred that petitioner tried to deprive her of the securit$ for the loan b$ 2a,in( a false report
--
of the
loss of her o#nerBs cop$ of T!T No. -8/-95 to the Ta(i( Police Station on .une 5, -66-, e?ecutin( an
affidavit of loss and b$ filin( a petition
-0
for the issuance of a ne# o#nerBs duplicate cop$ of said title
#ith the RT! of Ma,ati, "ranch -:0E that the petition #as (ranted in an Order
-5
dated &u(ust 5-, -66-E
that said Order #as subse7uentl$ set aside in an Order dated &pril -1, -660
-:
#here the RT! Ma,ati
(ranted respondentBs petition for relief fro2 )ud(2ent due to the fact that respondent is in possession of
the o#nerBs duplicate cop$ of T!T No. -8/-95, and ordered the provincial public prosecutor to
conduct an investi(ation of petitioner for per)ur$ and false testi2on$. Respondent pra$ed for the e?'
parte issuance of a #rit of preli2inar$ attach2ent and pa$2ent of t#o 2illion pesos #ith interest at
58F per annu2 fro2 Dece2ber 9, -66-, P-11,111.11 2oral, corrective and e?e2plar$ da2a(es
and P011,111.11 for attorne$Bs fees.
In an Order dated &pril 8, -665, the ?ecutive .ud(e of the RT! of Manila issued a #rit of preli2inar$
attach2ent upon the filin( of a bond in the a2ount of t#o 2illion pesos.
-4
Petitioner filed an &2ended &ns#er
-8
alle(in( that the Me2orandu2 of &(ree2ent #as conceived and
arran(ed b$ her la#$er, &tt$. !ar2elita >oGada, #ho is also respondentBs la#$erE that she #as as,ed to
si(n the a(ree2ent #ithout bein( (iven the chance to read the sa2eE that the title to the propert$ and
the Deed of Sale bet#een her and the IMRD! #ere entrusted to &tt$. >oGada for safe,eepin( and #ere
never turned over to respondent as there #as no consu22ated sale $etE that out of the t#o 2illion
pesos cash paid, &tt$. >oGada too, the one 2illion pesos #hich has not been returned, thus petitioner
had filed a civil case a(ainst herE that she #as never infor2ed of respondentBs decision not to purchase
the propert$ #ithin the si? 2onth period fi?ed in the a(ree2entE that #hen she de2anded the return of
T!T No. -8/-95 and the Deed of Sale bet#een her and the IMRD! fro2 &tt$. >oGada, the latter (ave
her these docu2ents in a bro#n envelope on Ma$ 4, -66- #hich her secretar$ placed in her attache
caseE that the envelope to(ether #ith her other personal thin(s #ere lost #hen her car #as forcibl$
opened the follo#in( da$E that she sou(ht the help of &tt$. >oGada #ho advised her to secure a police
report, to e?ecute an affidavit of loss and to (et the services of another la#$er to file a petition for the
issuance of an o#nerBs duplicate cop$E that the petition for the issuance of a ne# o#nerBs duplicate
cop$ #as filed on her behalf #ithout her ,no#led(e and neither did she si(n the petition nor testif$ in
court as falsel$ clai2ed for she #as abroadE that she #as a victi2 of the 2anipulations of &tt$. >oGada
and respondent as sho#n b$ the filin( of cri2inal char(es for per)ur$ and false testi2on$ a(ainst herE
that no interest could be due as there #as no valid 2ort(a(e over the propert$ as the principal
obli(ation is vitiated #ith fraud and deception. She pra$ed for the dis2issal of the co2plaint, counter'
clai2 for da2a(es and attorne$Bs fees.
Trial on the 2erits ensued. On .anuar$ 5-, -668, the RT! issued a decision,
-9
the dispositive portion of
#hich reads<
=HR%OR, )ud(2ent is hereb$ RNDRD<
-+ Orderin( defendant to pa$ plaintiff the su2 of P0 Million plus interest thereon at the rate of
thirt$ t#o *50F+ per cent per annu2 be(innin( Dece2ber 9, -66- until full$ paid.
0+ Orderin( defendant to pa$ plaintiff the su2 of P91,111.11 representin( pre2iu2s paid b$
plaintiff on the attach2ent bond #ith le(al interest thereon counted fro2 the date of this
decision until full$ paid.
5+ Orderin( defendant to pa$ plaintiff the su2 of P-11,111.11 b$ #a$ of 2oral, corrective and
e?e2plar$ da2a(es.
:+ Orderin( defendant to pa$ plaintiff attorne$Bs fees of P-11,111.11 plus cost of liti(ation.
-/
The RT! found that petitioner #as under obli(ation to pa$ respondent the a2ount of t#o 2illion pesos
#ith co2pounded interest pursuant to their Me2orandu2 of &(ree2entE that the fraudulent sche2e
e2plo$ed b$ petitioner to deprive respondent of her onl$ securit$ to her loaned 2one$ #hen petitioner
e?ecuted an affidavit of loss and instituted a petition for the issuance of an o#nerBs duplicate title
,no#in( the sa2e #as in respondentBs possession, entitled respondent to 2oral da2a(esE and that
petitionerBs bare denial cannot be accorded credence because her testi2on$ and that of her #itness did
not appear to be credible.
The RT! further found that petitioner ad2itted that she received fro2 respondent the t#o 2illion pesos
in cash but the fact that petitioner (ave the one 2illion pesos to &tt$. >oGada #as #ithout respondentBs
,no#led(e thus it is not bindin( on respondentE that respondent had also proven that in -665, she
initiall$ paid the su2 ofP51,111.11 as pre2iu2 for the issuance of the attach2ent bond, P01,111.11 for
its rene#al in -66:, andP01,111.11 for the rene#al in -664, thus plaintiff should be rei2bursed
considerin( that she #as co2pelled to (o to court and as, for a #rit of preli2inar$ attach2ent to
protect her ri(hts under the a(ree2ent.
Petitioner filed her appeal #ith the !&. In a Decision dated .une -/, 0110, the !& affir2ed the RT!
decision #ith 2odification, the dispositive portion of #hich reads<
=HR%OR, pre2ises considered, the decision appealed fro2 is MODI%ID in the sense that the
rate of interest is reduced fro2 50F to 04F per annu2, effective .une 9, -66- until full$ paid.
-6
The !& found that< petitioner (ave the one 2illion pesos to &tt$. >oGada partl$ as her co22ission and
partl$ as a loanE respondent did not replace the 2ista,enl$ dated chec, of one 2illion pesos because
she had decided not to bu$ the propert$ and petitioner ,ne# of her decision as earl$ as &pril -66-E the
a#ard of 2oral da2a(es #as #arranted since even (rantin( petitioner had no hand in the filin( of the
petition for the issuance of an o#nerBs cop$, she e?ecuted an affidavit of loss of T!T No. -8/-95 #hen
she ,ne# all alon( that said title #as in respondentBs possessionE petitionerBs clai2 that she thou(ht the
title #as lost #hen the bro#n envelope (iven to her b$ &tt$. >oGada #as stolen fro2 her car #as
hollo#E that such deceitful conduct caused respondent serious an?iet$ and e2otional distress.
The !& concluded that there #as no basis for petitioner to sa$ that the interest should be char(ed for
si? 2onths onl$ and no 2oreE that a loan al#a$s bears interest other#ise it is not a loanE that interest
should co22ence on .une 9, -66-
01
#ith co2pounded ban, interest prevailin( at the ti2e the t#o
2illion #as considered as a loan #hich #as in .une -66-E that the ban, interest rate for loans secured
b$ a real estate 2ort(a(e in -66- ran(ed fro2 04F to 50F per annu2 as certified to b$ Prudential
"an,,
0-
that in fairness to petitioner, the rate to be char(ed should be 04F onl$.
PetitionerBs 2otion for reconsideration #as denied b$ the !& in a Resolution dated Septe2ber --,
0110.
Hence the instant Petition for Revie# on Certiorari filed b$ petitioner raisin( the follo#in( issues<
*&+ =HTHR OR NOT TH !OMPOANDD "&NH INTRST SHOA>D " >IMITD
TO SI@ *8+ MONTHS &S !ONT&IND IN TH MMOR&NDAM O% &3RMNT.
*"+ =HTHR OR NOT TH RSPONDNT IS NTIT>D TO MOR&> D&M&3S.
*!+ =HTHR OR NOT TH 3R&NT O% !ORR!TIV &ND @MP>&R; D&M&3S
&ND &TTORN;BS %S IS PROPR VN I% NOT MNTIOND IN TH T@T O%
TH D!ISION.
00
Petitioner contends that the interest, #hether at 50F per annu2 a#arded b$ the trial court or at 04F
per annu2 as 2odified b$ the !& #hich should run fro2 .une 9, -66- until full$ paid, is contrar$ to
the partiesB Me2orandu2 of &(ree2entE that the a(ree2ent provides that if respondent #ould decide
not to purchase the propert$, petitioner has the period of another si? 2onths to pa$ the loan #ith
co2pounded ban, interest for the last si? 2onths onl$E that the !&Bs rulin( that a loan al#a$s bears
interest other#ise it is not a loan is contrar$ to &rt. -648 of the Ne# !ivil !ode #hich provides that no
interest shall be due unless it has been e?pressl$ stipulated in #ritin(.
=e are not persuaded.
=hile the !&Bs conclusion, that a loan al#a$s bears interest other#ise it is not a loan, is fla#ed since a
si2ple loan 2a$ be (ratuitous or #ith a stipulation to pa$ interest,
05
#e find no error co22itted b$ the
!& in a#ardin( a 04F interest per annu2 on the t#o'2illion peso loan even be$ond the second si?
2onths stipulated period.
The Me2orandu2 of &(ree2ent e?ecuted bet#een the petitioner and respondent on Dece2ber 9, -661
is the la# bet#een the parties. In resolvin( an issue based upon a contract, #e 2ust first e?a2ine the
contract itself, especiall$ the provisions thereof #hich are relevant to the controvers$.
0:
The (eneral
rule is that if the ter2s of an a(ree2ent are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the
contractin( parties, the literal 2eanin( of its stipulations shall prevail.
04
It is further re7uired that the
various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted to(ether, attributin( to the doubtful ones that sense
#hich 2a$ result fro2 all of the2 ta,en )ointl$.
08
In this case, the phrase Ifor the last si? 2onths onl$I should be ta,en in the conte?t of the entire
a(ree2ent. =e a(ree #ith and adopt the !&Bs interpretation of the phrase in this #ise<
Their a(ree2ent spea,s of t#o *0+ periods of si? 2onths each. The first si?'2onth period #as (iven to
plaintiff'appellee *respondent+ to 2a,e up her 2ind #hether or not to purchase defendant'appellantBs
*petitionerJs+ propert$. The second si?'2onth period #as (iven to defendant'appellant to pa$ the P0
2illion loan in the event that plaintiff'appellee decided not to bu$ the sub)ect propert$ in #hich case
interest #ill be char(ed Ifor the last si? 2onths onl$I, referrin( to the second si?'2onth period. This
2eans that no interest #ill be char(ed for the first si?'2onth period #hile appellee #as 2a,in( up her
2ind #hether to bu$ the propert$, but onl$ for the second period of si? 2onths after appellee had
decided not to bu$ the propert$. This is the 2eanin( of the phrase Ifor the last si? 2onths onl$I.
!ertainl$, there is nothin( in their a(ree2ent that su((ests that interest #ill be char(ed for si? 2onths
onl$ even if it ta,es defendant'appellant an eternit$ to pa$ the loan.
09
The a(ree2ent that the a2ount (iven shall bear co2pounded ban, interest for the last si? 2onths
onl$, i.e., referrin( to the second si?'2onth period, does not 2ean that interest #ill no lon(er be
char(ed after the second si?'2onth period since such stipulation #as 2ade on the lo(ical and
reasonable e?pectation that such a2ount #ould be paid #ithin the date stipulated. !onsiderin( that
petitioner failed to pa$ the a2ount (iven #hich under the Me2orandu2 of &(ree2ent shall be
considered as a loan, the 2onetar$ interest for the last si? 2onths continued to accrue until actual
pa$2ent of the loaned a2ount.
The pa$2ent of re(ular interest constitutes the price or cost of the use of 2one$ and thus, until the
principal su2 due is returned to the creditor, re(ular interest continues to accrue since the debtor
continues to use such principal a2ount.
0/
It has been held that for a debtor to continue in possession of
the principal of the loan and to continue to use the sa2e after 2aturit$ of the loan #ithout pa$2ent of
the 2onetar$ interest, #ould constitute un)ust enrich2ent on the part of the debtor at the e?pense of the
creditor.
06
Petitioner and respondent stipulated that the loaned a2ount shall earn co2pounded ban, interests, and
per the certification issued b$ Prudential "an,, the interest rate for loans in -66- ran(ed fro2 04F to
50F per annu2. The !& reduced the interest rate to 04F instead of the 50F a#arded b$ the trial court
#hich petitioner no lon(er assailed.1awphi1.nt
In Bautista v. Pilar Development Corp.,
51
#e upheld the validit$ of a 0-F per annu2 interest on
a P-:0,508.:5 loan. In Garcia v. Court of Appeals,
5-
#e sustained the a(ree2ent of the parties to a 0:F
per annu2 interest on an P/,8:6,041.11 loan. Thus, the interest rate of 04F per annu2 a#arded b$ the
!& to a P0 2illion loan is fair and reasonable.
Petitioner ne?t clai2s that 2oral da2a(es #ere a#arded on the erroneous findin( that she used a
fraudulent sche2e to deprive respondent of her securit$ for the loanE that such findin( is baseless since
petitioner #as ac7uitted in the case for per)ur$ and false testi2on$ filed b$ respondent a(ainst her.
=e are not persuaded.
&rticle 5- of the !ivil !ode provides that #hen the civil action is based on an obli(ation not arisin(
fro2 the act or o2ission co2plained of as a felon$, such civil action 2a$ proceed independentl$ of the
cri2inal proceedin(s and re(ardless of the result of the latter.
50
=hile petitioner #as ac7uitted in the false testi2on$ and per)ur$ cases filed b$ respondent a(ainst her,
those actions are entirel$ distinct fro2 the collection of su2 of 2one$ #ith da2a(es filed b$
respondent a(ainst petitioner.
=e a(ree #ith the findin(s of the trial court and the !& that petitionerBs act of tr$in( to deprive
respondent of the securit$ of her loan b$ e?ecutin( an affidavit of loss of the title and institutin( a
petition for the issuance of a ne# o#nerBs duplicate cop$ of T!T No. -8/-95 entitles respondent to
2oral da2a(es.1a\^/phi1.net Moral da2a(es 2a$ be a#arded in culpa contractual or breach of
contract cases #hen the defendant acted fraudulentl$ or in bad faith. "ad faith does not si2pl$ connote
bad )ud(2ent or ne(li(enceE it i2ports a dishonest purpose or so2e 2oral obli7uit$ and conscious
doin( of #ron(. It parta,es of the nature of fraud.
55
The Me2orandu2 of &(ree2ent provides that in the event that respondent opts not to bu$ the propert$,
the 2one$ (iven b$ respondent to petitioner shall be treated as a loan and the propert$ shall be
considered as the securit$ for the 2ort(a(e. It #as testified to b$ respondent that after the$ e?ecuted
the a(ree2ent on Dece2ber 9, -661, petitioner (ave her the o#nerBs cop$ of the title to the propert$,
the Deed of Sale bet#een petitioner and IMRD!, the certificate of occupanc$, and the certificate of the
Secretar$ of the IMRD! #ho si(ned the Deed of Sale.
5:
Ho#ever, not#ithstandin( that all those
docu2ents #ere in respondentBs possession, petitioner e?ecuted an affidavit of loss that the o#nerBs
cop$ of the title and the Deed of Sale #ere lost.
&lthou(h petitioner testified that her e?ecution of the affidavit of loss #as due to the fact that she #as
of the belief that since she had de2anded fro2 &tt$. >oGada the return of the title, she thou(ht that the
bro#n envelope #ith 2ar,in(s #hich &tt$. >oGada (ave her on Ma$ 4, -66- alread$ contained the title
and the Deed of Sale as those docu2ents #ere in the sa2e bro#n envelope #hich she (ave to &tt$.
>oGada prior to the transaction #ith respondent.
54
Such state2ent re2ained a bare state2ent. It #as not
proven at all since &tt$. >oGada had not ta,en the stand to corroborate her clai2. In fact, even
petitionerBs o#n #itness, "enilda ;nfante *;nfante+, #as not able to establish petitionerJs clai2 that
the title #as returned b$ &tt$. >oGada in vie# of ;nfanteJs testi2on$ that after the bro#n envelope #as
(iven to petitioner, the latter passed it on to her and she placed it in petitionerBs attachK case
58
and did
not bother to loo, at the envelope.
59
It is clear therefro2 that petitionerBs e?ecution of the affidavit of loss beca2e the basis of the filin( of
the petition #ith the RT! for the issuance of ne# o#nerBs duplicate cop$ of T!T No. -8/-95.
PetitionerBs actuation #ould have deprived respondent of the securit$ for her loan #ere it not for
respondentBs ti2el$ filin( of a petition for relief #hereb$ the RT! set aside its previous order (rantin(
the issuance of ne# title. Thus, the a#ard of 2oral da2a(es is in order.
The entitle2ent to 2oral da2a(es havin( been established, the a#ard of e?e2plar$ da2a(es is
proper.
5/
?e2plar$ da2a(es 2a$ be i2posed upon petitioner b$ #a$ of e?a2ple or correction for the
public (ood.
56
The RT! a#arded the a2ount of P-11,111.11 as 2oral and e?e2plar$ da2a(es. =hile
the a#ard of 2oral and e?e2plar$ da2a(es in an a((re(ate a2ount 2a$ not be the usual #a$ of
a#ardin( said da2a(es,
:1
no error has been co22itted b$ !&. There is no 7uestion that respondent is
entitled to 2oral and e?e2plar$ da2a(es.
Petitioner ar(ues that the !& erred in a#ardin( attorne$Bs fees because the trial courtBs decision did not
e?plain the findin(s of facts and la# to )ustif$ the a#ard of attorne$Bs fees as the sa2e #as 2entioned
onl$ in the dispositive portion of the RT! decision.
=e a(ree.
&rticle 001/
:-
of the Ne# !ivil !ode enu2erates the instances #here such 2a$ be a#arded and, in all
cases, it 2ust be reasonable, )ust and e7uitable if the sa2e #ere to be (ranted.
:0
&ttorne$Js fees as part
of da2a(es are not 2eant to enrich the #innin( part$ at the e?pense of the losin( liti(ant. The$ are not
a#arded ever$ ti2e a part$ prevails in a suit because of the polic$ that no pre2iu2 should be placed on
the ri(ht to liti(ate.
:5
The a#ard of attorne$Js fees is the e?ception rather than the (eneral rule. &s such,
it is necessar$ for the trial court to 2a,e findin(s of facts and la# that #ould brin( the case #ithin the
e?ception and )ustif$ the (rant of such a#ard. The 2atter of attorne$Js fees cannot be 2entioned onl$ in
the dispositive portion of the decision.
::
The$ 2ust be clearl$ e?plained and )ustified b$ the trial court
in the bod$ of its decision. On appeal, the !& is precluded fro2 supple2entin( the bases for a#ardin(
attorne$Bs fees #hen the trial court failed to discuss in its Decision the reasons for a#ardin( the sa2e.
!onse7uentl$, the a#ard of attorne$Js fees should be deleted.
01EREFORE, in vie# of all the fore(oin(, the Decision dated .une -/, 0110 and the Resolution
dated Septe2ber --, 0110 of the !ourt of &ppeals in !&'3.R. !V No. 40/56 are AFFIRME. 2i#'
MO.IFICATION that the a#ard of attorne$Bs fees is .E-ETE..
No pronounce2ent as to costs.
SO OR.ERE..
MA. A-ICIA AUSTRIA(MARTINE/
&ssociate .ustice
= !ON!AR<
CONSUE-O 3NARES(SANTIAGO
&ssociate .ustice
!hairperson
ROMEO ,. CA--E,O, SR.
&ssociate .ustice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Asscociate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson! Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
"ursuant to Section #$! Article %III of the Constitution! and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation! it is hereb& certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice