11/8/2016 G.R.No.

116121

THIRDDIVISION

THEHEIRSOFTHELATE G.R.No.116121
RUBENREINOSO,SR.,
representedbyRubenReinosoJr.,

Petitioners, Present:

CARPIO,J.
versus VELASCO,JR.,Chairperson,
PERALTA,
ABAD,and
MENDOZA,JJ.
COURTOFAPPEALS,
PONCIANOTAPALES,JOSE
GUBALLA,andFILWRITERS
GUARANTYASSURANCE

CORPORATION,

Respondent.
Promulgated:

July18,2011

xx

DECISION

MENDOZA,J.:

[1]
BeforetheCourtisapetitionforreviewassailingtheMay20,1994Decision andJune30,1994
[2]
Resolution oftheCourtofAppeals(CA),inCAG.R.CVNo.19395,whichsetasidetheMarch22,1988
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Manila (RTC) for nonpayment of docket fees. The
dispositiveportionoftheCAdecisionreads:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is SET ASIDE and
REVERSEDandthecomplaintinthiscaseisorderedDISMISSED.

Nocostspronouncement.

SOORDERED.

The complaint for damages arose from the collision of a passenger jeepney and a truck at around 7:00
oclockintheeveningofJune14,1979alongE.RodriguezAvenue,QuezonCity.Asaresult,apassengerof
the jeepney, Ruben Reinoso, Sr. (Reinoso), was killed. The passenger jeepney was owned by Ponciano
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/116121.htm 1/9
11/8/2016 G.R.No.116121
the jeepney, Ruben Reinoso, Sr. (Reinoso), was killed. The passenger jeepney was owned by Ponciano
Tapales (Tapales) and driven by Alejandro Santos (Santos), while the truck was owned by Jose Guballa
(Guballa)anddrivenbyMarianoGeronimo(Geronimo).

On November 7, 1979, the heirs of Reinoso (petitioners) filed a complaint for damages against
TapalesandGuballa.Inturn,GuballafiledathirdpartycomplaintagainstFilwritersGuarantyAssurance
Corporation(FGAC)underPolicyNumberOV09527.

OnMarch22,1988,theRTCrenderedadecisioninfavorofthepetitionersandagainstGuballa.The
decisioninpart,reads:

InfavorofhereinplaintiffsandagainstdefendantJoseGuballa:

1.ForthedeathofRubenReinoso,Sr. 30,000.00
2. Loss of earnings (monthly income at the time of death (2,000.00 Court used 120,000.00
1,000.00onlypermonth(or12,000.00onlyperyear)&victimthenbeing55at
deathhadten(10)yearslifeexpectancy

3.Mortuary,Medical&funeralexpensesandallincidentalexpensesinthewakein 15,000.00
servingthosewhocondoled..
4.Moraldamages.. 50,000.00
5.Exemplarydamages 25,000.00

6.Litigationexpenses. 15,000.00
7.Attorneysfees 25,000.00
Oratotalof250,000.00
Fordamagestoproperty:

InfavorofdefendantPoncianoTapalesandagainstdefendantJoseGuballa:

1. Actual damages for repair is already awarded to defendantcrossclaimant
Ponciano Tapales by Br. 9, RTCMalolos, Bulacan (Vide: Exh. 1GTapales)
hence,cannotrecovertwice.
2. Compensatory damages (earnings at 150.00 per day) and for two (2) months 9,000.00
jeepneystayedattherepairshop.
3.Moraldamages... 10,000.00
4.Exemplarydamages. 10,000.00
5.Attorneysfees 15,000.00

oratotalof44,000.00

Under the 3rd party complaint against 3rd party defendant Filwriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, the
Courtherebyrendersjudgmentinfavorofsaid3rdpartyplaintiffbywayof3rdpartyliabilityunderpolicyNo.
OV09527intheamountof50,000.00undertakingplus10,000.00asandforattorneysfees.

Foralltheforegoing,itisthewellconsideredviewoftheCourtthatplaintiffs,defendantPoncianoTapalesand
3rdPartyplaintiffJoseGuballaestablishedtheirclaimsasspecifiedabove,respectively.Totalityofevidence
preponderanceintheirfavor.

JUDGMENT

WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows:

InfavorofplaintiffsforthedeathofRubenReinoso,Sr.250,000.00

InfavorofdefendantPoncianoTapalesduetodamageofhispassengerjeepney.44,000.00

InfavorofdefendantJoseGuballaunderPolicyNo.OV09527....60,000.00
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/116121.htm 2/9
11/8/2016 G.R.No.116121
InfavorofdefendantJoseGuballaunderPolicyNo.OV09527....60,000.00

Allthespecifiedaccountswith6%legalrateofinterestperannumfromdateofcomplaintuntilfully
paid(Reforminavs.Tomol,139SCRA260andfinally

Costsofsuit.

[3]
SOORDERED.


On appeal, the CA, in its Decision dated May 20, 1994, set aside and reversed the RTC decision and
dismissedthecomplaintonthegroundofnonpaymentofdocketfeespursuanttothedoctrinelaiddownin
[4]
Manchesterv.CA. Inaddition,theCAruledthatsinceprescriptionhadsetin,petitionerscouldnolonger
[5]
paytherequireddocketfees.

PetitionersfiledamotionforreconsiderationoftheCAdecisionbutitwasdeniedinaresolutiondatedJune
[6]
30,1994. Hence,thisappeal,anchoredonthefollowing

GROUNDS:

A.TheCourtofAppealsMISAPPLIEDTHERULINGoftheSupremeCourtinthecase
ofManchesterCorporationvs.CourtofAppealstothiscase.

B.TheissueonthespecificationofthedamagesappearingintheprayeroftheComplaint
was NEVER PLACED IN ISSUE BY ANY OF THE PARTIES IN THE COURT OF
ORIGIN(REGIONALTRIALCOURT)NORINTHECOURTOFAPPEALS.

C.Theissuesofthecaserevolvearoundthemoresubstantialissueastothenegligenceof
[7]
theprivaterespondentsandtheirculpabilitytopetitioners.
ThepetitionersarguethattherulinginManchestershouldnothavebeenappliedretroactivelyinthis
case,sinceitwasfiledpriortothepromulgationoftheManchesterdecisionin1987.Theypleadthatthough
this Court stated that failure to state the correct amount of damages would lead to the dismissal of the
complaint,saiddoctrineshouldbeappliedprospectively.

Moreover,thepetitionersassertthatatthetimeofthefilingofthecomplaintin1979,theywerenotcertain
oftheamountofdamagestheywereentitledto,becausetheamountofthelostincomewouldstillbefinally
determinedinthecourseofthetrialofthecase.Theyclaimthatthejurisdictionofthetrialcourtremains
even if there was failure to pay the correct filing fee as long as the correct amount would be paid
subsequently.

Finally,thepetitionersstressthattheallegeddefectwasneverputinissueeitherintheRTCorintheCA.

TheCourtfindsmeritinthepetition.

[8]
The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. In
[9]
Manchesterv.CourtofAppeals, itwasheldthatacourtacquiresjurisdictionoveranycaseonlyuponthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/116121.htm 3/9
11/8/2016 G.R.No.116121
Manchesterv.CourtofAppeals, itwasheldthatacourtacquiresjurisdictionoveranycaseonlyuponthe
paymentoftheprescribeddocketfee.Thestrictapplicationofthisrulewas,however,relaxedtwo(2)years
[10]
afterinthecaseofSun Insurance Office, Ltd. v.Asuncion, wherein the Court decreed that where the
initiatorypleadingisnotaccompaniedbythepaymentofthedocketfee,thecourtmayallowpaymentofthe
fee within a reasonable period of time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period.Thisrulingwasmadeonthepremisethattheplaintiffhaddemonstratedhiswillingnesstoabideby
[11]
the rules by paying the additional docket fees required. Thus, in the more recent case of United
[12]
OverseasBankv.Ros, theCourtexplainedthatwherethepartydoesnotdeliberatelyintendtodefraud
thecourtinpaymentofdocketfees,andmanifestsitswillingnesstoabidebytherulesbypayingadditional
docketfeeswhenrequiredbythecourt,theliberaldoctrineenunciatedinSunInsuranceOffice,Ltd.,andnot
thestrictregulationssetinManchester,willapply.IthasbeenonrecordthattheCourt,inseveralinstances,
allowed the relaxation of the rule on nonpayment of docket fees in order to afford the parties the
[13]
opportunitytofullyventilatetheircasesonthemerits.InthecaseofLaSaletteCollegev.Pilotin, the
Courtstated:

Notwithstandingthemandatorynatureoftherequirementofpaymentofappellatedocketfees,we
alsorecognizethatitsstrictapplicationisqualifiedbythefollowing:first, failure topay those fees
within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal second, such
powershouldbeusedbythecourtinconjunctionwithitsexerciseofsounddiscretioninaccordance
withthetenetsofjusticeandfairplay,aswellaswithagreatdealofcircumspectioninconsideration
[14]
ofallattendantcircumstances.

Whilethereisacryingneedtounclogcourtdocketsontheonehand,thereis,ontheother,agreater
[15]
demandforresolvinggenuinedisputesfairlyandequitably, foritisfarbettertodisposeofacaseonthe
meritwhichisaprimordialend,ratherthanonatechnicalitythatmayresultininjustice.

In this case, it cannot be denied that the case was litigated before the RTC and said trial court had
alreadyrenderedadecision.Whileitwasatthatlevel,thematterofnonpaymentofdocketfeeswasnever
anissue.ItwasonlytheCAwhichmotupropiodismissedthecaseforsaidreason.
Considering the foregoing, there is a need to suspend the strict application of the rules so that the
petitionerswouldbeabletofullyandfinallyprosecutetheirclaimonthemeritsattheappellatelevelrather
thanfailtosecurejusticeonatechnicality,for,indeed,thegeneralobjectiveofprocedureistofacilitatethe
applicationofjusticetotherivalclaimsofcontendingparties,bearingalwaysinmindthatprocedureisnot
[16]
tohinderbuttopromotetheadministrationofjustice.

TheCourtalsotakesintoaccountthefactthatthecasewasfiledbeforetheManchesterrulingcame
out. Even if said ruling could be applied retroactively, liberality should be accorded to the petitioners in
viewoftherecencythenoftheruling.LeniencybecauseofrecencywasappliedtothecasesofFarEastern
[17] [18]
ShippingCompanyv.CourtofAppeals andSpousesJimmyandPatriChanv.RTCofZamboanga.
[19]
InthecaseofMactanCebuInternationalAirportAuthorityv.Mangubat(Mactan), itwasstatedthatthe
intentoftheCourtiscleartoaffordlitigantsfullopportunitytocomplywiththenewrulesandtotemper
enforcementofsanctionsinviewoftherecencyofthechangesintroducedbythenewrules.InMactan,the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/116121.htm 4/9
11/8/2016 G.R.No.116121
enforcementofsanctionsinviewoftherecencyofthechangesintroducedbythenewrules.InMactan,the
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)alsofailedtopaythecorrectdocketfeesontime.

Weheldinanothercase:

xxxItbearsstressingthattherulesofprocedurearemerelytoolsdesignedtofacilitatethe
attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the
dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial
discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously
guidedbythenormthat,onthebalance,technicalitiestakeabackseatagainstsubstantiverights,
andnottheotherwayaround.Thus,iftheapplicationoftheRuleswouldtendtofrustraterather
thanpromotejustice,itisalwayswithinthepoweroftheCourttosuspendtheRules,orexcepta
[20]
particularcasefromitsoperation.


The petitioners, however, are liable for the difference between the actual fees paid and the correct
payable docket fees to be assessed by the clerk of court which shall constitute a lien on the judgment
pursuanttoSection2ofRule141whichprovides:
SEC.2.Feesinlien.Wherethecourtinitsfinaljudgmentawardsaclaimnotalleged,ora
reliefdifferentfrom,ormorethanthatclaimedinthepleading,thepartyconcernedshallpaythe
additionalfeeswhichshallconstitutealienonthejudgmentinsatisfactionofsaidlien.Theclerk
ofcourtshallassessandcollectthecorrespondingfees.

As the Court has taken the position that it would be grossly unjust if petitioners claim would be
dismissed on a strict application of the Manchester doctrine, the appropriate action, under ordinary
circumstances,wouldbefortheCourttoremandthecasetotheCA.Considering,however,thatthecaseat

bench has been pending for more than 30 years and the records thereof are already before this Court, a
remand of the case to the CA would only unnecessarily prolong its resolution. In the higher interest of
substantialjusticeandtosparethepartiesfromfurtherdelay,theCourtwillresolvethecaseonthemerits.

The facts are beyond dispute. Reinoso, the jeepney passenger, died as a result of the collision of a
jeepney and a truck on June 14, 1979 at around 7:00 oclock in the evening along E. Rodriguez Avenue,
QuezonCity.Itwasestablishedthattheprimarycauseoftheinjuryordamagewasthenegligenceofthe
truck driver who was driving it at a very fast pace. Based on the sketch and spot report of the police
authorities and the narration of the jeepney driver and his passengers, the collision was brought about
because the truck driver suddenly swerved to, and encroached on, the left side portion of the road in an
attempttoavoidawoodenbarricade,hittingthepassengerjeepneyasaconsequence.Theanalysisofthe
RTCappearsinitsdecisionasfollows:
Perusal and careful analysis of evidence adduced as well as proper consideration of all the
circumstances and factors bearing on the issue as to who is responsible for the instant vehicular
mishap convince and persuade this Court that preponderance of proof is in favor of plaintiffs and
defendant Ponciano Tapales. The greater mass of evidence spread on the records and its influence
supportplaintiffsplaintincludingthatofdefendantTapales.
TheLandTransportationandTrafficRule(R.A.No.4136),readsasfollows:

Sec.37.Drivingonrightsideofhighway.Unlessadifferentcourseofactionisrequired
in the interest of the safety and the security of life, person or property, or because of
unreasonabledifficultyofoperationincompliancetherewith,everypersonoperatingamotor
vehicleorananimaldrawnvehicleonhighwayshallpasstotherightwhenmeetingpersons
orvehiclescomingtowardhim,andtotheleftwhenovertakingpersonsorvehiclesgoingthe
same direction, and when turning to the left in going from one highway to another, every
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/116121.htm 5/9
11/8/2016 G.R.No.116121
same direction, and when turning to the left in going from one highway to another, every
vehicleshallbeconductedtotherightofthecenteroftheintersectionofthehighway.
Havinginmindtheforegoingprovisionoflaw,thisCourtisconvincedoftheveracityofthe
versionofthepassengerjeepneydriverAlejandroSantos,(plaintiffsandTapaleswitness)thatwhile
runningonlaneNo.4westwardboundtowardsOrtigasAvenueatbetween3040kms.perhour(63
64 tsn, Jan. 6, 1984) the sand & gravel truck from the opposite direction driven by Mariano
Geronimo, the headlights of which the former had seen while still at a distance of about 3040
metersfromthewoodenbarricadeastridelanes1and2,uponreachingsaidwoodenblocksuddenly
swervedtotheleftintolanes3and4athighspeednapakabilispongdatingngtruck.(29tsn,Sept.
26,1985)intheprocesshittingthem(Jeepneypassenger)attheleftsideuptowherethereservetire
was in an oblique manner pahilis (57 tsn, Sept.26,1985). The jeepney after it was bumped by the
truckduetothestrongimpactwasthrownrestingonitsrightsidewhiletheleftsidewasontopof
the Bangketa (side walk). The passengers of the jeepney and its driver were injured including two
passengerswhodied.Theleftsideofthejeepneysufferedconsiderabledamageasseeninthepicture
(Exhs.4&5Tapales,pages331332,records)takenwhileattherepairshop.
TheCourtisconvincedofthenarrationofSantostotheeffectthatthegravel&sandtruckwas
runninginhighspeedonthegoodportionofE.RodriguezAvenue(lane1&2)beforethewooden
barricadeand(havinginmindthatithadjustdelivereditsloadattheCorinthianGardens)sothat
whensuddenlyconfrontedwiththewoodenobstaclebeforeithadtoavoidthesameinamannerofa
reflexreactionorkneejerkresponsebyforthwithswervingtohisleftintotherightlanes(lanes3&
4).Atthetimeofthebumping,thejeepneywasrunningonitsrightlaneNo.4andevenduringthe
moments before said bumping, moving at moderate speed thereon since lane No. 3 was then
somewhat rough because being repaired also according to Mondalia who has no reason to
prevaricate being herself one of those seriously injured. The narration of Santos and Mondalia are
convincing and consistent in depicting the true facts of the case untainted by vacillation and
therefore,worthytobereliedupon.Theirstoryisforfeitedandconfirmedbythesketchdrawnbythe
investigating officer Pfc. F. Amaba, Traffic Division, NPD, Quezon City who rushed to the scene of

themishap(Vide:ResolutionofAsstfiscalElizabethB.ReyesmarkedasExhs.7,7A,7BTapales,
pp. 166168, records the Certified Copy found on pages 598600, ibid, with the attached police
sketchofPfc.Amaba,markedasExh.8Tapalesonpage169,ibidcertifiedcopyofwhichisonpage
594,ibid)indicatingthefactthatthebumpingindeedoccurredatlaneNo.4andshowinghowthe
gavel&sandtruckispositionedinrelationtothejeepney.Thesaidpolicesketchhavingbeenmade
rightaftertheaccidentisapieceofevidenceworthytoberelieduponshowingthetruefactsofthe
bumpingoccurrence.Therulethatofficialdutyhadbeenperformed(Sec.5(m),R131,andalsoSec.
38,Ra30,Rev.RulesofCourt)therebeingnoevidenceadducedandmadeofrecordtothecontrary
is that said circumstance involving the two vehicles had been the result of an official investigation
[21]
andmustbetakenastruebythisCourt.

[22]
Whileendingupontheoppositelaneisnotconclusiveproofoffaultinautomobilecollisions, the
positionofthetwovehicles,asdepictedinthesketchofthepoliceofficers,clearlyshowsthatitwasthe
truckthathitthejeepney.TheevidentiaryrecordsdisclosedthatthetruckwasspeedingalongE.Rodriguez,
heading towards Santolan Street, while the passenger jeepney was coming from the opposite direction.
WhenthetruckreachedacertainpointneartheMeralcoPostNo.J9450,thefrontportionofthetruckhit
theleftmiddlesideportionofthepassengerjeepney,causingdamagetobothvehiclesandinjuriestothe
driverandpassengersofthejeepney.Thetruckdrivershouldhavebeenmorecareful,because,atthattime,
a portion of E. Rodriguez Avenue was under repair and a wooden barricade was placed in the middle
thereof.

TheCourtlikewisesustainsthefindingoftheRTCthatthetruckowner,Guballa,failedtorebutthe
presumptionofnegligenceinthehiringandsupervisionofhisemployee. Article2176,inrelationtoArticle
2180oftheCivilCode,provides:
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligenceisobligedtopayforthedamagedone.Suchfaultornegligence,ifthereisnopreexisting
contractualrelationbetweentheparties,iscalledaquasidelictandisgovernedbytheprovisionsof
thisChapter.

xxxx
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/116121.htm 6/9
11/8/2016 G.R.No.116121
xxxx

Art.2180.TheobligationimposedbyArt.2176isdemandablenotonlyforonesownactsor
omissionsbutalsoforthoseofpersonsforwhomoneisresponsible.
xxxx
Employersshallbeliableforthedamagecausedbytheiremployeesandhouseholdhelpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks even though the former are not engaged in any
businessorindustry.
xxxx
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
provethattheyobservedallthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilytopreventdamage.

Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a
presumptionjuristantumthattheemployerfailedtoexercisediligentissimipatrisfamiliesintheselection
[23]
orsupervisionofhisemployee. Thus,intheselectionofprospectiveemployees,employersarerequired
toexaminethemastotheirqualification,experienceandservicerecord.Withrespecttothesupervisionof
employees, employers must formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and
imposedisciplinarymeasuresforbreachesthereof.Thesefactsmustbeshownbyconcreteproof,including
[24]
documentary evidence. Thus, the RTC committed no error in finding that the evidence presented by
respondentGuballawaswanting.Itruled:
x x x. As expected, defendant Jose Guballa, attempted to overthrow this presumption of
negligencebyshowingthathehadexercisedtheduediligencerequiredofhimbyseeingtoitthatthe
drivermustcheckthevitalpartsofthevehicleheisassignedtobeforeheleavesthecompoundlike
theoil,water,brakes,gasoline,horn(9tsn,July17,1986)andthatGeronimohadbeendrivingfor
himsometimein1976untilthecollisioninlitigationcameabout(56tsn,ibid)thatwheneverhis
trucks gets out of the compound to make deliveries, it is always accompanied with two (2) helpers
(1617 tsn, ibid).This was all whichhe consideredas selectionand supervisionincompliancewith
the law to free himself from any responsibility. This Court then cannot consider the foregoing as
equivalenttoanexerciseofallthecareofagoodfatherofafamilyintheselectionandsupervisionof
[25]
hisdriverMarianoGeronimo.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May 20, 1994 Decision and June 30, 1994
ResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsareREVERSEDandSETASIDEandtheMarch22,1988Decisionof
theRegionalTrialCourt,Branch8,Manila,isREINSTATED.

SOORDERED.


JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice



http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/116121.htm 7/9
11/8/2016 G.R.No.116121


PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice
Chairperson




ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecase
wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.


PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

DesignatedasadditionalmemberoftheThirdDivisionperSpecialOrderNo.1042datedJuly6,2011.
NowCentennialGuaranteeAssuranceCorporation.Rollo,p.244.
[1]
Id.at2428.PennedbythenAssociateJusticeConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticeJorgeS.ImperialandAssociate
JusticePacitaCaizaresNye.
[2]
Id.at30.
[3]
Rollo,pp.5456.

[4]
233Phil.579(1987).
[5]
Rollo,pp.2428.
[6]
Idat30.
[7]
Id.at1519.
[8]
Pedrosav.Hill,327Phil.153,158(1996).
[9]
Supranote4.
[10]
252Phil.280(1989).
[11]
Id.at291.
[12]
G.R.No.171532,August7,2007,529SCRA334,353.
[13]
463Phil.785(2003).
[14]
Id.at794.

[15]
Santosv.CourtofAppeals,323Phil.762,770(1996).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/116121.htm 8/9
11/8/2016 G.R.No.116121
[16]
Bautistav.Unangst,G.R.No.173002,July4,2008,557SCRA256,271.
[17]
G.R.No.130150,October1,1998,297SCRA30.
[18]
G.R.No.149253,April15,2004,427SCRA796.
[19]
371Phil.393(1999).
[20]
Cua,Jr.v.Tan,G.R.Nos.18145556,December4,2009,607SCRA645,687.
[21]
Records,Vol.I,pp.698699.

[22]
Macalinaov.Ong,514Phil.127,137(2005).
[23]
Id.
[24]
Pleytov.Lomboy,476Phil.373,386(2004).
[25]
Records,Vol.I,pp.701702.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/116121.htm 9/9