Republic Vs Sandiganbayan
Republic Vs Sandiganbayan
Republic Vs Sandiganbayan
*
G.R. Nos. 112708-09. March 29, 1996.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
439
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
440
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
441
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
442
search warrant’s validity, the absence of even one will cause its
downright nullification: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause;
(2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself
and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the
determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under
oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the
latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly
describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be
seized.
Same; Same; Same; Only a “judge” and “such other
responsible officer as may be authorized by law” were empowered
by the Freedom Constitution to issue search warrants.—The
PCGG has no authority to issue the order in the first place. Only a
“judge” and “such other responsible officer as may be authorized by
law” were empowered by the FREEDOM CONSTITUTION to do
so, and the PCGG is neither. It is not a judge, as clarified by the
Court in “Baseco.”
Same; Same; Same; PCGG cannot be considered as “such
other responsible officer as may be authorized by law.”—And the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
443
FRANCISCO, J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
444
Gentlemen:
By virtue of the powers vested in the Presidential
Commission on Good Government by authority of the
President of the Republic of the Philippines, we hereby
sequester the shares of stocks in Maranaw Hotels and
Resort Corporation held by and/or in the name of
Sipalay Trading Corporation.
We direct you not to cause any transfer, conveyance,
encumbrance, concealment, or liquidation of the
aforementioned shares of stocks without any written
authority from the Commission.
x x x x x x x x x
This sequestration order and formation of the
Supervisory Committee shall take effect upon your
receipt of this Order.
For your immediate and strict compliance.
Very truly yours,
FOR THE COMMISSION:
(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
RAMON A. DIAZ QUINTIN S. DOROMAL
2
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
2
Commissioner Commissioner”
_______________
445
“The Manager
Allied Banking Corporation
Valenzuela Branch
Valenzuela, Metro Manila
SEARCH AND SEIZURE ORDER
Gentlemen:
By virtue of the powers vested in this Commission
by the President of the Republic of the Philippines, you
are hereby directed to submit for search and seizure all
bank documents in the above-mentioned premises
which our representative may find necessary and
relevant to the investigation being conducted by this
Commission.
Atty. Benjamin Alonte is deputized to head the
team that will implement this Order.
August 13, 1986, Pasig, Metro Manila.
(Sgd.)
RAMON A. DIAZ
Commissioner
(Sgd.)
MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA
3
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
3
Commissioner”
ALLIED went to court for the same reason that the PCGG
was bent on implementing the order. ALLIED contended
that this order is not one for sequestration but is
particularly a general search warrant which fails to meet
the constitutional requisites for its valid issuance.
The petitions were jointly heard by the
SANDIGANBAYAN. Briefly, the more salient events which
transpired therein are as follows:
At the presentation of their evidence, PCGG Secretary
Ramon Hontiveros appeared as the lone witness for
SIPALAY
_______________
446
_______________
447
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
448
Tan, et al. being threshed out and litigated in Civil Case No. 0005.
_______________
449
_______________
11 81 SCRA 574.
12 83 SCRA 265.
13 203 SCRA 515.
14 55 SCRA 267.
450
_______________
451
The length of time the PCGG allowed to drift away and its
decision to file its motion to dismiss only at the
homestretch of the trial hardly qualify as “proper time.”
This factual scenario largely differs from the “Ocampo”
case relied upon by the PCGG. In that case and the case16
of
“Community Investment & Finance Corp. v. Garcia” cited
therein, the motions to dismiss involved were filed just
after the filing of the answer, and not at some belated time
nearing the end of the trial. The parties in those cases have
not presented any testimonial or documentary evidence
yet, as the trial proper has not commenced, and neither
does it appear that the movants concerned took close to
seven (7) years before filing their respective motions to
dismiss. The PCGG therefore cannot seek refuge in the
“Ocampo” case to justify the marked delay in filing its
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
16 88 Phil. 215.
17 236 SCRA 148 (September 1, 1994).
452
18
case, for “proper time” cannot mean nor sanction an
unexplained and unreasonable length of time such as seven
(7) years. The leniency extended by the Rules (Rule 9,
Section 2, Rules of Court) and by jurisprudence (“Ocampo
case”) in allowing a motion to dismiss based on lack of
cause of action filed after the answer or at any stage of the
proceedings cannot be invoked to cover-up and validate the
onset of laches—or the failure to do something which
should
19
be done or to claim or enforce a right at a proper
time which, in this case, was one of the PCGG’s follies.
Indeed, in matters of timeliness, “indecent waste” is just as
reprehensible as “indecent haste.”
Another equally forceful reason warranting the denial of
the PCGG’s motion to dismiss is that this case falls under
two recognized exceptions to the general rule of prior
exhaustion of administrative remedies, and the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
18 Supra.
19 Hutchinson v. Kenney, C.C.A.N.C., 27 F. 2d 254, 256.
20 Sandiganbayan Decision, pp. 22-23.
453
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
454
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
455
_______________
456
_______________
457
_______________
31 Supra.
458
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
459
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
DR. DOROMAL
(DIRECT)
“JUSTICE ESCAREAL:
Purpose please?
“ATTY. LEYNES:
The testimony of this witness will cover the fact that at
the time of sequestration there were issued (sic), there
were more prima facie evidence.
x x x x x x x x x
ATTY. LEYNES:
q: Dr. Doromal, do you know the petitioner, Sipalay
Trading Corporation?
a: Yes, sir.
q: Why do you know Sipalay Trading Corporation?
a: It is one of those companies which we had investigated
and eventually issued a Sequestration Order.
q: Do you you (sic) Maranao Hotels and Resorts?
a: Yes, sir.
q: Why do you know this Maranao Hotels and Resorts?
a: Again it is one of those we had sequestered because of
its
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
460
461
ATTY. LEYNES:
May I request that this document which the witness
had identified, these documents consisted of seventy-six
documents and we have earlier inadvertently marked
them as Exhibit A to WWW but if we can have them
marked accordingly as Exhibits 1, 2 to 76 accordingly.
x x x x x x x x x
ATTY. LEYNES:
q: Doctor Doromal when you issued, when the
Sequestration Order was issued in the judgment of the
Commission, what quantum of evidence do these
documents amount to?
ATTY. MENDOZA:
Objection to the question, Your Honors (sic) please.
First of all the witness did not identify all of those
documents as he was going over the folder of
documents. He was picking up particular documents in
the folder and it is a question of law.
ATTY. LEYNES:
We are proving that there is more prima facie evidence
in the judgment when he issued the Sequestration
Order. What is the quantum of evidence do these
documents represent?
JUSTICE ESCAREAL:
For the purpose of issuance thereof?
ATTY. LEYNES:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE ESCAREAL:
With that qualification are you willing to accept that
qualification?
ATTY. LEYNES:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
462
463
ration?
a: I am one of the most who participated in the discussion
when I became a member and that was April in 1986.
x x x x x x x x x
ATTY. LEYNES:
q: when deliberated upon what documents were
considered?
x x x x x x x x x
WITNESS:
a: First of all when this Search and Seizure Order was
issued this was during the time that I was already a
member of the PCGG as Commissioner and when this is
brought before the group before the Commission there
are the attached documents that backed up this Search
and Seizure Order and for that matter other items that
have to do with the sequestration or something similar
to that so what I am saying the materials that go with
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
464
WITNESS:
a: the reason was that in the Maranao Corporation which
was the company which was later on acquired by
Sipalay Trading Corporation which was the holding
company it was ourjudgment that there are enough
indications there that these were acquired because of
closeness to the president and that this was really in
fact one of those that had been gotten from DBP,
Development Bank of the Philippines with the idea
being that it was, it could begotten through the help of
the Office of the President and the President himself.
x x x x x x x x x
ATTY. LEYNES:
q: What if any is the finding of PCGG regarding the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
465
ATTY. LEYNES:
q: Madam Witness, what basis or document, if any did the
commission consider when it issued the search and
seizure order?
a: We had several documents in our possession at that
time, one of the documents was a list which have been
taken from the office of Imee M. Araneta on EDSA
which contained a listing of the holdings of the late
President Marcos in several corporations and the extent
of his participation on this corporations. And the other,
in addition to what have been given by certain
informants, another was an affidavit of Mr. Gapud
which he had issued wherein he had mentioned also the
participation of Mr. Marcos in Allied Banking, I think
that affidavit is here and also the fact that deposits
were made from Allied Banking in the accounts of Mr.
Marcos in theSecurity Bank.
xxxxxxxxx
q: Madam Witness, you mentioned certain documents on
the basis of which the PCGG issued the search and
seizure order against Allied Banking Corporation, I am
showing to you a folder containing Exhibits 1 to 18, will
you please go over this document and state which
ofthese documents were considered by the Commission
when it issued the search and seizure order.
a: These documents marked Exhibits 1 which is a list,
which is a letter, unfortunately I don’t see page two
ofthis but this is the document which we have
addressed principally, as far as we know addressed to
the late President Marcos and together with this we
have Exhibit 2, another letter dated March 28, 1977
addressed to the Deputy Governor Mr. Briñas about the
intention to purchase General Bank and Trust
Company and subsequently documents Exhibit 3 signed
by Carlota Valenzuela, Special Assistant to the
Governor, Exhibit 4
466
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
______________
467
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
468
Tan?
a: Among them is precisely Allied Banking Corporation,
Asia Brewery and Sipalay Trading Corporation. I mean
these are some of the corporations.
q: Chairman Bautista, what is the legal basis or authority
by the commission of the Presidential Commission on
Good Government when it issued the Search and
Seizure Order against the Allied Banking Corporation?
a: The Commission under Executive Order No. 1, the
President has been given specifically the power to
sequester business and property owned by the late
President Marcos, Mrs. Marcos, relatives and close
business associates and to take possession or take over
this business and assets in order to prevent dissipation
of these assets or removal of these assets and
concealment of these assets and also to take over such
documents as the Commission may consider necessary
in order that these documents may be preserved for the
purpose of the filing of the case in order to prosecute or
conduct civil action against President Marcos, Mrs.
Marcos, relatives and other close business associates
that is very clearly stated in Executive Order No. 1.
x x x x x x x x x
ATTY. LEYNES:
0100, Your Honor.
q: Chairman Bautista, the Search and Seizure Order
issued by PCGG dated August 13, 1986 against Allied
Banking Corporation reads in pertinent part and I
quote:
“You are hereby directed to submit for Search and
Seizure all bank documents in the above mentioned
premises which our representatives may find necessary
and relevant to the investigation conducted by the
Commission.”
a: Well I think we clearly specify there that we are to seize
the bank documents.
It is specifically stated that the Search and Seizure
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
469
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
470
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
471
sonality
38
from its principal stockholders, i.e., Lucio Tan, et al. x x
x.”
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
472
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
44 Schallert v. Boggs, Tex. Civ. App. 204 S.W. 1061, 1062. Id.
45 Mozley & Whitley State v. Lawlo, 28 Minn. 216, 9 N.W. 698. Id.
46 The Fanny Tuthill, 17 Fed. Rep. 87, 90. Moore on Facts, Vol. 1, p.
579.
47 The Ship Francis, 1 Gall. [US] 618, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5, 035. Moore on
Facts, Vol. 1, p. 579.
48 The London Racket, 1 Mason [US] 14, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,
473
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
51 Cunard Steamship v. Kelley, 126 Fed. Rep. 610, 614, 61 C.C.A. 532;
Otterbourg’s Case, 5 Ct. Cl. 430, 439; Hollingsworth v. Martin, 23 Ala.
591; Moore on Facts, Vol. 1, p. 596.
52 People v. Van Zile, 143 N.Y. 372, 373, 38 N.E. Rep. 380, per Andrews,
C.J.; Scott v. Crerar, 11 Ont. 541, 551. Moore on Facts, Vol. 1, p. 61.
53 Boyd v. Glucklich, [C.C.A.] 116 Fed. Rep. 131, per Caldwell, J. Moore
on Facts, Vol. 1, p. 61.
54 The Ship Henry Ewbank, 1 Sumn. [US] 400, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6, 376,
per Mr. Justice Story. Moore on Facts, Vol. 1, p. 62.
55 Yaggle v. Allen, 24 N.Y. App. Div. 594, 48 N.Y. Supp. 827;
474
______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
475
“ATTY. MENDOZA:
x x x x x x x x x
Q: I am asking you how many months did it take looking
for records?
A: I think more than two months, sir.
Q: And these were the records you found, marked Exhibits
A and B?
60
A: Yes, sir, during the time I devoted to them.”
x x x x x x x x x
“ATTY. MENDOZA:
x x x x x x x x x
Q: But nonetheless, for two months you tried looking for
records corresponding to the subpoena?
61
A: Yes, sir.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
476
_______________
477
a) x x x
b) x x x
c) x x x and
d) Recover ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and
supporters of the previous regime and protect the interest of the
people through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets or
accounts.’
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
478
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
479
_______________
480
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
68
FED] v. PCGG” where the Court stressed anew that:
_______________
482
_______________
69 Lim v. Ponce de Leon, 66 SCRA 299. With the only exception that
officers other than a judge are now bereft of any authority to issue
warrants, the 1987 Constitution contains these very same requisites.
Section 2, Article III thereof reads:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.”
70 Prudente v. Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69, citing Quintero v. NBI, 162 SCRA
467; 20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. CA, 164 SCRA 655; People v. Sy
Juco, 64 Phil. 667; Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 33; US v. Addison, 28 Phil. 566.
483
“It should also by now be reasonably evident from what has thus
far been said that the PCGG is not, and was never intended to act
as, judge. Its general function is to conduct investigations in order
to collect evidence establishing instances of ‘ill-gotten wealth’;
issue sequestration, and such orders as may be warranted by the
evidence thus collected and as may be necessary to preserve and
conserve the assets of which it takes custody and control and
prevent their disappearance, loss or dissipation; and eventually
file and prosecute in the proper court of competent jurisdiction all
cases investigated by it as may be warranted by its findings. It
does not try and decide, or hear and determine, or adjudicate with
any character of finality or compulsion, cases involving the
essential issue of whether or not property should be forfeited and
transferred to the State because ‘ill-gotten’ within the meaning of
the Constitution and the executive orders. This function is
reserved to the designated court, in this case, the Sandiganbayan.
There can therefore be no serious regard accorded to the
accusation, leveled by BASECO, that the PCGG plays the
perfidious role of prosecutor and judge at the same time.” (Italics
supplied.)
_______________
484
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 49/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
485
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 50/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
“Section 26.
x x x x x x x x x.
“A sequestration or freeze order shall be issued only upon
showing of a prima facie case. The order and the list of the
_______________
486
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 51/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
provided.”
And here are the relevant and undisputable facts: The 1987
Constitution was ratified on February 2, 1987. Counting
six (6) months therefrom, August 2, 1987 was the
constitutional deadline for the PCGG to file the
corresponding judicial action/proceeding against entity or
entities it sequestered prior to February 2, 1987. Among
such entity or entities were SIPALAY and ALLIED, the
dates of their sequestration as appearing from the
corresponding orders issued against them are July 14, 1986
and August 13, 1986, respectively. The PCGG admittedly
did not file any direct complaint either against SIPALAY or
ALLIED before the SANDIGANBAYAN between February
2 and August 2 of 1987. But within such period, specifically
on July 17, 1987, the PCGG filed before the
SANDIGANBAYAN a civil case against Lucio Tan and
others, for “Reversion, Reconveyance, Restitution, 78
Accounting and Damages,” docketed as CC No. 0005. The
original complaint in CC No. 0005 did not name SIPALAY
and ALLIED as defendants, 79
as it enumerated only natural
persons, except for one, as such. SIPALAY and ALLIED
were impleaded as
_______________
487
defendants in CC No. 0005 for the first time only after the
lapse of more than four (4) years from the filing of the
original complaint in July of 1987, under an amended
complaint filed by the PCGG in September of 1991.
Given this factual backdrop, two propositions are being
bruited by the PCGG:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 52/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
488
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 53/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
489
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 54/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 55/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
_______________
82 81 Phil. 273.
83 62 SCRA 11.
84 156 SCRA 113.
491
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 56/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
492
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 57/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
493
_______________
494
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 59/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
495
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 60/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
exercised, with due regard, in the words of its enabling laws, to the
requirements of fairness, due process, and Justice.’ (Italics supplied)
496
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 61/62
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 255
Petition dismissed.
——o0o——
497
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d773e258171e510d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 62/62