CERTIF.

IED TRUE COPY

;.~'.f (oj- !:r: t'Hlvo~epublic of

.... , . . ""~.~...,.,,. (lfff:-. -

...

1
tl~\ j;.

tbe ftbilippines

;" ~~-:T~ ~~.- ~

1

. i:Jlli;J-.r-r\i ~ ~upreme <!Court

SE? 0 1 2015

s. \} J

\ ....,....r~ ~J~

.,1'...:.:_JV'

'~;:":.~~---~t);W

--=

V.L~

Division ~lerk of Court

Third Division

SEP 0 1 2015

Jl!lanila

THIRD DIVISION

NG MENG TAM,
Petitioner,

G.R. No. 214054

Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
PERALTA,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,* and
JARDELEZA, JJ.

- versus -

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION,

Respondent.

Promulgated:
August 5, 2015

x--------------------------------~-~~
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before this Court is a direct recourse from the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) via petition 1 for review on the question of whether Section 52 of the
Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR) applies to hostile or adverse witnesses. The
petition seeks to annul and set aside the May 28, 20143 and August 27, 20144
Orders of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City in Civil Case No. 08-1028.
This case stemmed from a collection suit filed by China Banking
Corporation (China Bank) against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company
Inc. (Ever), the heirs of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng
Meng Tam sometime in December 2008. China Bank alleged that it granted

Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order No.
2084 dated June 29, 2015.
Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Rollo, pp. 3-21.
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE, Section 5 provides:
Sec. 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is
neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a
judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things
under his control available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting
party may avail himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21
of the Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this case shall
be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shat I be
understood to be ex parte.
Rollo, pp. 22-A to 24. Signed by Presiding Judge Benjamin T. Pozon.
Id. at 25-27.

ll"

Decision

G.R. No. 214054

Ever a loan amounting to 1!5,532,331.63. The loan was allegedly backed by

two surety agreements executed by Vicente, George and petitioner in its
favor, each for 1!5,000,000.00, and dated December 9, 1993 and May 3,
1995, respectively. When Ever defaulted in its payment, China Bank sent
demand letters collectively addressed to George, Vicente 'and 'petitioner.
The demands were unanswered. China Bank filed the complaint for
collection docketed as Civil Case No. 08-1028, which was raffled off to
RTC Branch 62, Makati City.
In his Answer, petitioner alleged that the surety agreements were null
and void since these were executed before the loan was granted in 2004.
Petitioner posited that the surety agreements were contracts of adhesion to
be construed against the entity which drafted the same. Petitioner also
alleged that he did not receive any demand letter.
In the course of the proceedings, petitioner moved that his affirmative
defenses be heard by the RTC on the ground that the suit is barred by the
statute of limitations and laches. 5 The motion was denied by the court. 6
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in its December 22, 2010 Decision7
ruled that a preliminary hearing was proper pursuant to Section 6, 8 Rule 16
of the Rules of Court due to the grounds cited by petitioner. There being no
appeal, the decision became final and executory on August 28, 2011. 9
On March 15, 2011, petitioner served interrogatories to parties 10
pursuant to Sections 111 and 6, 12 Rule 25 of the Rules of Court to China
Bank and required Mr. George C. Yap, Account Officer of the Account
Management Group, to answer.
On June 22, 2011, George Yap executed his answers to interrogatories

13
to parties.

9
10
11

12

13

Id. at 65.
RTC Order dated January 4, 2010, id. at 66.
Rollo, pp. 63-75. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices
Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Franchito N. Diamante concurring.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 16, Section 6 provides:
SEC. 6. Pleading grounds as afjirmative defenses. - If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of
the grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the
answer and, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to
dismiss had been filed.
Rollo, p. 76.
Id. at 77-79.
RULES OF COURT, Rule 25, Section I provides:
SECTION I. Interrogatories to parties; service thereof - Under the same conditions specified in
section I of Rule 23, any party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts from any adverse parties
shall file and serve upon the latter written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the
party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer thereof
competent to testify in its behalf.
Id., Section 6 provides:
SEC. 6. Effect offailure to serve written interrogatories. - Unless thereafter allowed by the court
for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with written interrogatories
may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition
pending appeal.
Rollo, pp. 80-85. Sent via registered mail on June 23, 2011.

Decision

G.R. No. 214054

In the meantime, having failed mediation and judicial dispute

resolution, Civil Case No. 08-1028 was re-raffled off to RTC Branch 139,
Makati City.
Petitioner again moved for the hearing of his affirmative defenses.
Because h~ found Yap' s answers to the interrogatories to parties evasive and
not responsive, petitioner applied for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum
and ad testificandum against George Yap pursuant to Section 6, 14 Rule 25 of
the Revised Rules of Court.
On April 29, 2014, when the case was called for the presentation of
George Yap as a witness, China Bank objected citing Section 5 of the JAR.
China Bank said that Yap cannot be compelled to testify in court because
petitioner did not obtain and present George Yap's judicial affidavit. The
RTC required the parties to submit their motions on the issue of whether the
preparation of a judicial affidavit by George Yap as an adverse or hostile
witness is an exception to the judicial affidavit rule. 15
Petitioner contended that Section 5 does not apply to Yap because it
specifically excludes adverse party witnesses and hostile witnesses from its
application. Petitioner insists that Yap needed to be called to the stand so
that he may be qualified as a hostile witness pursuant to the Rules of Court.
China Bank, on the other hand, stated that petitioner's characterization
of Yap' s answers to the interrogatories to parties as ambiguous and evasive
is a declaration of what type of witness Yap is. It theorizes that the
interrogatories to parties answered by Yap serve as the judicial affidavit and
there is no need for Yap to be qualified as a hostile witness.
In its May 28, 2014 Order, the RTC denied for lack of merit
petitioner's motion to examine Yap without executing a judicial affidavit.
The RTC in interpreting Section 5 of the JAR stated:
x x x The aforementioned provision, which allows the requesting
party to avail himself of the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of Court
finds applicability to: (a) a government employee or official, or the
requested witness, who is neither the witness of the adverse party nor a
hostile witness and (b) who unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial
affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books,
documents, or other things under his control available for copying,
authentication, and eventual production in court.
In the case at bar, witness George Yap is being utilized as an
adverse witness for the [petitioner]. Moreover, there was no showing that
he unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit. In fact, it was
[China Bank]'s counsel who insisted that said witness' judicial affidavit be
taken. Thus, Section 5 of the (JAR] which [petitioner] invoked to exempt
him from the Rule finds no application. Unless there is contrary ruling on
the matter by the Supreme Court, this court has no choice but to
implement the rule as written.
14
15

Supra note 12.

Rollo, pp. 86-87.

Decision

G.R. No. 214054

On this note, this Court also finds no merit on the contention of

[China Bank] that the answer to the written interrogatories by witness
George Yap already constitutes his judicial affidavit. Inasmuch as the Court
strictly implemented the [JAR] on the part of [petitioner], so shall it rule in
the same manner on the part of [China Bank]. As correctly pointed out by
[petitioner], the said answer to interrogatories does not comply with Section
3 of the [JAR] which provides for the contents of the judicial affidavit. 16

In essence, the R TC ruled that Section 5 did not apply to Yap since he
was an adverse witness and he did not unjustifiably decline to execute a
judicial affidavit. It stated:
In view of the foregoing, the motion of the [petitioner] that witness
George Yap be examined without executing a Judicial Affidavit is hereby
DENIED FOR LACK OF MERIT. 17

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC in

its August 27, 2014 Order. 18 The RTC reiterated its position and stated:
It must be pointed out that the [petitioner] [was] the [one] who

invoked the provisions of Section 5 of the [JAR] to compel the attendance

of witness George Yap and as such, it is their duty to show the
applicability of the said provisions to the case at bar. As stated in the
challenged Order, Section 5 of the [JAR] finds applicability to: (a) a
government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither
the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness and (b) who
unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just
cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things under his
control available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in
court. In the case at bar, [petitioner] [does] not deny that witness George
Yap is to be utilized as [his] adverse witness. On this score alone, it is
clear that the provisions invoked do not apply. 19

The RTC stressed that Section 5 of the JAR required the requested
witness' refusal to be unjustifiable. It stated:
x x x the [JAR] requires that the refusal must be unjustifiable and
without just cause. It must be pointed out that [China Bank]'s previous
motions to quash the subpoena was grounded on the claim that having
already submitted to this court his sworn written interrogatories, his being
compelled to testify would be unreasonable, oppressive and pure
harassment. Thus, witness' refusal to testify cannot be considered
unjustifiable since he raised valid grounds. 20

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner contends that the RTC committed a grave error when it
interpreted Section 5 to include adverse party and hostile witnesses. Based

16
11

18
19

20

Id. at 23.
Id.
Supra note 4.
Id. at 26.
Id.

Decision

G.R. No. 214054

on the wording of Section 5, adverse party and hostile witnesses are clearly
excluded.
China Bank asserts that Yap neither refused unjustifiably nor without
just cause refused to a judicial affidavit. It cited the RTC's August 27, 2014
Order where the court said that Yap had answered the interrogatories and to
compel him to testify in open court would be "unreasonable, oppressive and
pure harassment." Moreover, it stated that based on the language used by
Section 2 of the JAR the filing of judicial affidavits is mandatory.
The petition is anchored on the following arguments:
I

RTC BR. 139-MAKATI COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT

INTERPRETED SEC. 5 OF THE [JAR] CONTRARY TO ITS
WORDINGS.
II

RTC BR. 139-MAKATI COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT

INTERPRETED SEC. 5 [OF THE JAR] CONTRARY TO ITS
PRACTICAL INTENTION AND COMMON SENSE.
III

RTC BR. 139-MAKATI COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT

EFFECTIVELY DISREGARDED THE RELEVANT RULES ON MODE
OF DISCOVERY WHICH GOVERN THE PRESENTATION OF
ADVERSE WITNESSES.
IV
ON A POLICY LEVEL AND IN THE EVENT RTC BR. 139-MAKATI'S
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF SEC. 5 OF THE [JAR] IS
CORRECT (I.E., THAT OPPOSING PARTY WHO INTENDS TO
PRESENT ADVERSE OR HOSTILE WITNESS MUST GET AND
SUBMIT THAT WITNESS' JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT NO MATTER
WHAT) IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED, WITH THE UTMOST
INDULGENCE OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT, THAT
THE SAME RULE BE IMPROVED OR AMENDED BY PROVIDING
SANCTIONS IN THE EVENT THE ADVERSE OR HOSTILE WITNESS
REFUSES TO ANSWER OR EXECUTE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT AS
REQUIRED BY THE OPPOSING PARTY. 21

We grant the petition.

THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
APPLIES TO PENDING CASES

RULE

On September 4, 2012, the JAR was promulgated to address case

congestion and delays in courts. To this end, it seeks to reduce the time
21

Id.at9-10.

ti

Decision

G.R. No. 214054

needed to take witnesses' testimonies. 22 The JAR took effect on January 1,

2013 and would also apply to pending cases pursuant to Section 12 to wit:
Sec. 12. Ejfectivity. - This rule shall take effect on January 1,
2013 following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation
not later than September 15, 2012. It shall also apply to existing cases.
(Emphasis supplied)

The Court En Banc gave public prosecutors in first and second level courts
one year of modified compliance. 23 The JAR thus took full effect on
January 1, 2014.
Here, parties were presenting their evidence for the RTC's
consideration when the JAR took effect. Therefore, pursuant to Section 12
the JAR applies to the present collection suit.
SECTION 5 OF THE JAR DOES NOT
APPLY
TO
ADVERSE
PARTY
WITNESSES

The JAR primarily affects the manner by which evidence is presented

in court. Section 2(a) of the JAR provides that judicial affidavits are
mandatorily filed by parties to a case except in small claims cases. These
judicial affidavits take the place of direct testimony in court. It provides:
Sec. 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of
direct testimonies. - (a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on
the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than
five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled
hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the following:
( 1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the
place of such witnesses' direct testimonies; and
(2) The parties' documentary or object evidence, if any, which
shall be attached to the judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C,
and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1,
2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant.
xx xx

Section 324 of the JAR enumerates the content of a judicial affidavit.

22

23
24

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE, 4th Whereas Clause provides:

xx xx
Whereas, in order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in
cases under litigation, on February 21, 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial courts in
Quezon City the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in place of the direct testimonies of witnesses;
xx xx
Resolution dated January 8, 2013, rollo (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC), pp. 37-39.
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE, Section 3 provides:
Sec. 3. Contents of Judicial Affidavit. - A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language
known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or
Filipino, and shall contain the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;

Decision

G.R. No. 214054

Under Section 10, 25 parties are to be penalized if they do not conform to the
provisions of the JAR. Parties are however allowed to resort to the
application of a subpoena pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Court in
Section 5 of the JAR in certain situations. Section 5 provides:
Sec. 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or official, or the
requested witness, who is neither the witness of the adverse party nor a
hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or
refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other
things under his control available for copying, authentication, and eventual
production in court, the requesting party may avail himself of the issuance
of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules
of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in
this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the
taking of a judicial affidavit shal 1 be understood to be ex parte.

While we agree with the RTC that Section 5 has no application to Yap
as he was presented as a hostile witness we cannot agree that there is need
for a finding that witness unjustifiably refused to execute a judicial affidavit.
Section 5 of the JAR contemplates a situation where there is a (a)
government employee or official or (b) requested witness who is not the (1)
adverse party's witness nor (2) a hostile witness. If this person either (a)
unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or (b) refuses without
just cause to make the relevant documents available to the other party and its
presentation to court, Section 5 allows the requesting party to avail of
issuance of subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court. Thus, adverse party witnesses and hostile witnesses being
excluded they are not covered by Section 5. Expressio unius est exclusion

25

(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the
witness and the place where the examination is being held;
(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that
he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which
he testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their
authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court;
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who
is authorized by law to administer the same.
Id., Section 10 provides:
Sec. 10. Effect of non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. - (a) A party who fails to
submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their
submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the
delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party
pays a fine of not less than Pl,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the
scheduled hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite
notice shall be deemed to have waived his client's right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses
there present.
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content
requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may, however,
allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing
or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and
provided further, that public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a
fine of not less than Pl,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

Decision

G.R. No. 214054

alterius: the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies

the exclusion of all others. 26

Here, Yap is a requested witness who is the adverse party's witness.

Regardless of whether he unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial
affidavit or refuses without just cause to present the documents, Section 5
cannot be made to apply to him for the reason that he is included in a group
of individuals expressly exempt from the provision's application.
The situation created before us begs the question: if the requested
witness is the adverse party's witness or a hostile witness, what procedure
should be followed?
The JAR being silent on this point, we tum to the prov1s10ns
governing the rules on evidence covering hostile witnesses specially Section
12, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which provides:
SEC. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. - Except with
respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the
party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so
declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest,
unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into calling
him to the witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is
an adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him in all
respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence
of his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by
the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject
matter of his examination-in-chief.

Before a party may be qualified under Section 12, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court, the party presenting the adverse party witness must comply with
Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court which provides:
SEC. 6. Effect offailure to serve written interrogatories. - Unless
thereafter allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a
failure of justice, a party not served with written interrogatories may not
be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to
give a deposition pending appeal.

In Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., 27 this Court stated

that "in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness
stand is not allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon the
latter." 28 There petitioners Spouses Afulugencia sought the issuance of a
26

27

28

Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS, INC.) v.
Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM}, G.R. No. 192088, October 9,
2012, 682 SCRA 602, 649.
G.R. No. 185145, February 5, 2014, 715 SCRA 399.
Id. at 412.

tf

Decision

G.R. No. 214054

subpoena duces tecum and ad testi.ficandum to compel the officers of the

bank to testify and bring documents pertaining to the extrajudicial
foreclosure and sale of a certain parcel of land. Metrobank moved to quash
the issuance of the subpoenas on the ground of non-compliance with Section
6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court. In quashing the issuance of the subpoena,
the Court reminded litigants that the depositions are a mechanism by which
fishing expeditions and delays may be avoided. Further written
interrogatories aid the court in limiting harassment and to focus on what is
essential to a case. The Court stated:
One of the purposes of the above rule is to prevent fishing
expeditions and needless delays; it is there to maintain order and facilitate
the conduct of trial. It will be presumed that a party who does not serve
written interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will most likely be
unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts to call the adverse party
to the witness stand as its witness. Instead, the process could be treated as a
fishing expedition or an attempt at delaying the proceedings; it produces no
significant result that a prior written interrogatories might bring.
Besides, since the calling party is deemed bound by the adverse
party's testimony, compelling the adverse party to take the witness stand
may result in the calling party damaging its own case. Otherwise stated, if
a party cannot elicit facts or information useful to its case through the
facility of written interrogatories or other mode of discovery, then the
calling of the adverse party to the witness stand could only serve to
weaken its own case as a result of the calling party's being bound by the
adverse party's testimony, which may only be worthless and instead
detrimental to the calling party's cause.
Another reason for the rule is that by requiring prior written
interrogatories, the court may limit the inquiry to what is relevant, and
thus prevent the calling party from straying or harassing the adverse party
when it takes the latter to the stand.
Thus, the rule not only protects the adverse party from
unwarranted surprises or harassment; it likewise prevents the calling party
from conducting a fishing expedition or bungling its own case. Using its
own judgment and discretion, the court can hold its own in resolving a
dispute, and need not bear witness to the parties perpetrating unfair court
practices such as fishing for evidence, badgering, or altogether ruining
their own cases. Ultimately, such unnecessary processes can only
constitute a waste of the court's precious time, if not pointless
entertainment. 29 (Citation omitted)

In this case, parties, with the approval of the Court, furnished and
answered interrogatories to parties pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of Court.
They therefore complied with Section 6 of Rule 25 of the Rules of Court.
Before the present controversy arose, the R TC had already issued subpoenas
for Yap to testify and produce documents. He was called to the witness
stand when China Bank interposed its objection for non-compliance with
Section 5 of the JAR. Having established that Yap, as an adverse party
witness, is not within Section 5 of the JAR's scope, the rules in presentation
29

Id. at 413-414.

&{"

..
Decision

G.R. No. 214054

10

of adverse party witnesses as provided for under the Rules of Court shall
apply. In keeping with this Court's decision in Afulugencia, there is no
reason for the R TC not to proceed with the presentation of Yap as a witness.
In sum, Section 5 of the JAR expressly excludes from its application
adverse party and hostile witnesses. For the presentation of these types of
witnesses, the provisions on the Rules of Court under the Revised Rules of
Evidence and all other correlative rules including the modes of deposition
and discovery rules shall apply.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May 28, 2014 and
August 27, 2014 Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 139, Makati
City are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
......

~VILLA~, JR.
WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO ). VELASCO, JR.

Assoofate Justice

REZ

Associate Justice

Decision

G.R. No. 214054

11

ATTESTATION
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
Court's Division.

J. VELASCO, JR.
Asfociate Justice
Chairp/rson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify 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 Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Divisi
Third Division

SEP O 1 2015

A.