suPRE~ co~~T~~eJ;H~PPINes l\.

epuhlic of tbe tlbilippines

~ramvrn@ ~upreme C!Court JUN O7 2017
I fljaguio QCitp
I
UitOJJUIJl ii Jc#I

THIRD DIVISION

RENATO S.D. DOMINGO on his G.R. No. 203287

own behalf and on behalf of his co-
heirs of the late SPOUSES
FELICIDAD DE DOMINGO and
MACARIO C. DOMINGO,
Petitioners,

- versus -

SPOUSES ENGRACIA D.
SINGSON and MANUEL F.
SINGSON,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x
HEIRS OF SPOUSES FELICIDAD G.R. No. 207936
. S.D. DOMINGO and MACARIO
DOMINGO namely, Present:
CONSOLACION D. ROMERO,
RAFAEL S.D. DOMINGO, VELASCO, JR., J,
RAMON S.D. DOMINGO, Chairperson,
JOSEFINA D. BORJA, ROSARIO BERSAMIN,
S.D. DOMINGO, and RENATO REYES,
RAMIRO S.D. DOMINGO, JARDELEZA, and
Petitioners, TIJAM, JJ

- versus -

ENGRACIA D. SINGSON,
. ESTELITA I. CA_BALLES, and
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, SAN Promulgated:
JUAN CITY, METRO MANILA,

x-------"----------------------~~~~~~~~-~~~:----~~~-----x
}
 Decision 2 G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936

DECISION

REYES, J.:

Before the Court are two consolidated petitions for review on

2
certiorari - G.R. Nos. 20328?1 and 207936 - under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court seeking to annul aqd set aside the Decision3 dated August 31, 2012 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 122054 and the Decision4 dated June 28, 2013 in CA-G.R.
CV No. 98026, both issued by the Court of Appeals (CA). ·

Facts

The spouses Macario C. Domingo (Macario) and Felicidad S..D.

Domingo (Felicidad) (Spouses Domingo) ate the parents of respondent
Engracia D. Sing~on (Engracia) and petitioners Renato S.D. Domingo
(Renato) and his co-heirs whom he represents herein, namely: Consolacion
D. Romero (Consolacion), Josefina D. Borja, and Rafael, Ramon, and
Rosario, all surnamed Domingo (collectively, the petitioners). 5

During their lifetime, the Spouses Domingo owned a parcel of land,

situated in F. Sevilla Street, San Juan, Metro Manila, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TC1) No. 32600 (23937) 845-R, 6 and the house built
thereon (subject property). Macario died on February 22, 1981, while
Fel.icidad died on September 14, 1997. 7

It appears that on September 26, 2006, Engracia filed with the

Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila a complaint8 for ejectment/unlawful
detainer, docketed as Civil Case No. 9534, against Consolacion, Rosario,
Rafael, and Ramon. Engracia claimed that she is the absolute owner of the
. subject property, having bought the same frt)m the Spouses Domingo as
evidenced by an Absolute Deed of Sale9 dated.June 6, 2006. She likewise
averred that TCT No. 32600 (23937) 845-R was already cancelled and TCT
No. 12575 10 covering the subject property was already issued under her

Rollo (G.R. No. 203287), pp. I 0-32.

Rollo (G.R. No. 207936), pp. 14-85.
Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas
Peralta and Francisco P. Acosta concun-ing; rollo (G.R. No. 203287), pp. 212~22 l.
4
Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizzaro, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-
Fernando and Manuel M. Barrios concurring; rollo (G.R.'No. 207936), pp. 89-10 I.
5
Rollo (G.R. No. 203287), p. 12.
Id. at 84-86.
Id.at213.
Id. at 90-92.
9
Id. at 95-97.
JO
Id. at 93-94.

l
Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936

name. The petitioners only learned of the supposed sale of the subject
property when they received the summons and a copy of Engracia's
complaint in Civil Case No. 9534.

11
Consequently, on July 31, 2006, the petitioners filed a complaint
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, which sought the nullity
of the sale. They alleged that the Absolute Deed of Sale dated June 6, 2006,
upon which Engracia bases her ownership of the subject property, was a
nullity since the signatures of their parents appearing thereon as the
supposed vendors were forged. 12 The case was docketed as Civil Case No.
70898 and was raffled to Branch 160 of the RTC.

Meanwhile, on February 28, 2007, Renato, Consolacion, and Ramon

filed a Joint Affidavit Complaint13 with the Office of the City Prosecutor
(OCP) of Pasig City, claiming that Engracia falsified the signatures of their
parents in the Absolute Deed of Sale and, thus, charging her with the crimes
of falsification of public document, estafa, and use of falsified documents.
Consequently, on May 6, 2008, the OCP filed an Information 14 with the
RTC, charging Spouses Engracia and Manuel Singson (Spouses Singson)
with the crime of estafa through falsification of public documents. The case
was docketed as Criminal Case No. 137867 and was raffled to Branch 264
of the RTC.

On July 11, 2008, the Spouses Singson filed a Motion to Suspend

Proceedings Due to Prejudicial Question 15 with the RTC in Criminal Case
No. 137867. They alleged that the validity and genuineness of the Absolute
Deed of Sale, which is the subject of Civil Case No. 70898 then still pending
with the RTC Branch 160, are determinative of their guilt of the crime
charged. 16 Accordingly, they prayed that the proceedings in Criminal Case
No. 137867 be suspended pursuant to Section 6 of Rule 111 of the Rules of
Court. 17 The private prosecutor filed an opposition to the motion, stating
that Criminal Case No. 137867 can proceed independently from Civil Case
No. 70898 pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, in relation to Section 3
of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. 18

On February 12, 2010, the RTC Branch 264, issued an Order 19 in

Criminal Case No. 137867, which granted the motion to suspend the
proceedings filed by the Spouses Singson. The private prosecutor sought a

II
Id. at 98-103.
12
Id. at 100.
13
Id. at 105-108.
14
Id. at 119-120.
15
Id. at 134-136.
16
Id. at 134.
17
Id. at 135.
18
Id. at 137-140.
19
Rendered by Presiding Judge Leoncio M. Janolo, Jr.; id. at 141-143.

A
 Decision 4 G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936

· reconsideration20 of the Order dated February i2, 2010, but it was denied by
the R TC in its Order21 dated June 7, 2011.

Unperturbed, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorarP 2 with the

CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 122054, claiming that the RTC gravely
abused its discretion when it directed the suspension of the proceedings in ·
Criminal Case No. 137867 on the ground of prejudicial question. They
pointed out that the bases of their respective claims in both Civil Case No.
70898 and Criminal Case No. 137867. are the forged signatures of their
deceased parents.2 3 They claimed that where both a civil and criminal case
arising from the same facts are filed in court, the criminal case takes
precedence. 24

On August 31, 2012, the CA rendered a Decision25 in CA-G.R. SP

No. 122054, which denied the petition for certiorari. The CA opined that all
. the elements of a prejudicial question under s~ctions 6 and 7 of Rule 111 of
the Rules of Court are present; hence, the RTC did not abuse its discretion
when it directed the suspension of Criminal Case No. 137867. 26

Meanwhile, Civil Case No. 70898 was initially set for pre-trial
conference on February 7, 2008. 27 However, upon motion28 of Engracia, the
pre-trial was reset on March 6, 2008. 29 During the pre-trial conference on ·
March 6, 2008, Engracia moved that Rafael be substituted by his heirs since
he had already died on Oc;tober 15, 2007. 30 Thus, the RTC issued an Order31
dated March 6, 2008 directing the petitioners to comment on Engracia's
motion to substitute Rafael as plaintiff in the case below. On April 8, 2008,
Engracia filed a Motion to Dismiss 32 the case on the ground that the
petitioners failed to substitute the heirs of Rafael as plaintiff in the case. The
motion to dismiss was consequently denied by the RTC in its Order33 dated
November 12, 2008 for lack of merit.

20
Id. at 145-149.
21
Id. at 150-151.
22
Id. at 35-53.
23
Id. at 44.
24
Id. at 49.
25
Id. at 212-221.
26
Id. at217-218.
27
Order dated November 13, 2007 issued by Judg'e Amelia A. Fabros; rollo (G.R. No. 207936), pp.
133-134.
28
. Id. at 139-141.
29
Id. at 142.
30
Id. at 26-27.
31
Id. at 143.
12
Id. at 144-146.
33

ft
Id. at 156.
 Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936 .

The continuation of the pre-trial conference, which has been sidelined

pending the resolution of Engracia's motion to dismiss, was· then set on
March 19, 2009. 34 On March 12, 2009, Engracia's counsel, with her
conformity, withdrew his appearance as counsel in the case. 35 During the
pre-trial conference on March 19, 2009, the petitioners and their counsel
appeared. Engracia was likewise present although without her new counsel.
Accordingly, pre-trial was again reset on June 1, 2009 to afford Engracia
time to secure the services of a new counsel. 36 ·

Thereafter, Atty. Tristram B. Zoleta entered his appearance for

Engracia and moved that the pre-trial conference on June 1, 2009 be reset on
July 13 or 20, 2009. 37 However, Judge Amelia A. Fabros (Judge Fabros)
was reassigned to Muntinlupa City and Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano (Judge
Lim-Verano) was named to replace Judge Fabros as Presiding Judge of·
Branch 160. 38 On June 17, 2010, Judge Lim-Verano, having previously
presided over Criminal Case No. 137867, recused herself from adjudicating
Civil Case No. 70898. 39 'Civil Case No. 70898 was subsequently raffled to
Branch 264 of the RTC then presided by Judge Leoncio M. Janolo, Jr.
(Judge Janolo). On July 15, 2010, Judge Janolo issued an Order, 40 setting
the pre-trial of the case on August 25, 2010.

On August 12, 2010, the petitioners' counsel moved to reset the

pre-trial on September 15, 2010 due to previously scheduled hearings in the
. trial courts of Malolos City and Parafiaque Cit,,. 41 Accordingly, the pre-trial
was reset on October 6, 2010. 42 On October 6, ~010, the respective counsels
of the parties jointly agreed to reset the pre-trial on December 9, 2010. 43
However, the pre-trial scheduled on December 9, 2010 was again reset on
January 24, 2011. 44

On December 27, 2010, the petitioners filed a motion, 45 which sought

to exclude Rafael as being represented by Renato. They averred that they
were unable to effect a substitution of the heirs of Rafael as plaintiffs in the
case since they could not locate them.

34
Id. at 157.
35
Id. at 158-159.
36
Id. at 161.
37
id. at 163-166.
38
Id. at 30.
39
Id. at 171.
40
Id. at 172.
41
Id. at 174-176.
42
Id. at 177.
43
·1d. at 178.
44
Id. at I79.

f
45
Id. at 180-182.
 Decision 6 G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936

On January 27, 2011, the petitioners' counsel failed to appear and the
pre-trial was reset on March 24, 2011. 46 In the morning of March 23, 2011,
the petitioners' counsel informed Renato that he would not be able to attend
the pre-trial conference since he was indisposed and asked the latter to go to
the RTC and request for a resetting of the hearing. When the case was .
called, the petitioners and their counsel failed to appear, which thus
prompted Engracia's counsel to move for the dismissal of the complaint.and
be given time to file the.proper pleading. Thus, the RTC gave Engracia's
counsel 10 days within which to file a motion to dismiss. The _continuation
of the pre-trial was reset on May 26, 2011. 47

On April 5, 2011, Engracia filed a motion to dismiss 48 in compliance

49
with the RTC's directive. During the pre-trial on May 26, 2011, the RTC
gave the parties' respective counsels, upon their request, five days to fil_e a
comment on the motion to dismiss and a reply to such comment, after which
· time the motion to dismiss is deemed submitted for resolution.so

On July 29, 2011, the RTC Branch 264 issued an Orders' in Civil
Case No. 70898, dismissing the petitioners' complaint due to their and their
counsel's repeated failure to appear during the scheduled pre-trial hearing
dates.

The petitioners then filed an appeal with the CA, docketed as

CA-G.R. CV No. 98026, insisting that"the RTC erred in dismissing their
complaint on a mere technicality. They also claimed that Engracia's motion
to dismiss is but a mere scrap of paper since the same did not comply with
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. The CA, in its
Decisions 2 dated June 28, 2013 in CA-G.R. CV No. 98026, affirmed the
RTC's dismissal of the petitioners' complaint.

Issues

Essentially, the issues set forth for the Court's resolution are: first,
whether the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 137867 were properly
suspended on the ground of prejudicial question; and second, whether the
dismissal of the petitioners' complaint in Civil Case No. 70898 due to failure ·
to prosecute was proper.

46
Id. at 190.
47
Id. at 199.
48
Id. at 201-205.
49
Id. at 93.
50

t
Id. at 206.
51
Id. at 225-228.
52
Id. at 89-101.
 Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936

Ruling of the Court

The petitions are denied.

First Issue: Suspension of the

proceedings in Criminal Case No.
· 137867 on the gr~und of prejudicial
question

A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a

case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in
said case and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The ·
doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play generally in a situation
where civil and criminal actions are pending and the issues involved in both
cases are similar or so closely related that an issue must be pre-emptively
resolved in the civil case before the criminal action can proceed. 53 The
rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two
. . d . .
con fl1ctmg ec1s10ns. 54

For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to

cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of
. the civil case, the following requisites must -be present: ( 1) the civil case
involves facts intimately related to those . upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised
in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be
determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in
another tribunal. 55

Based on the issues raised in both Civil Case No. 70898 and Criminal
Case No. 137867 against the Spouses Singson, and in the light of the
foregoing concepts of a prejudicial question, there indeed appears to be a
prejudicial question in the case at bar. The defense of the Spouses Singson
in the civil case for annulment of sale is that Engracia bought the subject
property from her parents prior to their demise and that their signatures
appearing on the Absolute Deed of Sale are true and genuine. Their
allegation in the civil case is based on the very same facts, which would be
necessarily determinative of their guilt or innocence as accused in the
criminal case.

If the signatures of the Spouses Domingo in the Absolute Deed of

Sale are genuine, then there would be no falsification and the Spouses
Singson would be innocent of the offense charged. Otherwise stated, a
53 Quiambao v. Hon. Osorio, 242 Phil. 441, 444 ( 1988).
54
Ty-de Zuzuarregui v. Hon. Judge Villarosa, et al., 631 Phil. 375, 385 (2010).
55
Prado v. People, et al., 218 Phil. 573, 577 (l 984).

'
Decision 8 G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936

conviction on Criminal Case No. 137867, should it be allowed to proceed

ahead, would be a gross injustice and would have to be set aside if it were
finally decided in Civil Case No. 70898 that indeed the signatures of the
Spouses Domingo were authentic.

The petitioners' reliance on Section 356 of Rule 111 of the Rules of

Court, in relation to Article 33 57 of the Civil Code, is misplaced. Section 3
provides that a civil action for damages in cases provided under Articles 32,
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, which may also constitute criminal
offenses, may proceed independently of the criminal action. In instances
where an independent civil action is permitted, the result of the criminal
action, whether of acquittal or conviction, is entirely irrelevant to the civil
• 58
act10n.

The concept of independent civil actions finds no application in this

case. Clearly, Civil Case No. 70898 is very much relevant to the
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 137867. To stress, the main issue raised
in Civil Case No. 70898, i.e., the genuineness ofthe signature of the Spouses
Domingo appearing in the Absolute Deed of Sale, is intimately related to the
charge of estafa through falsification of public document in Criminal Case
No. 137867; the resolution of the main issue in Civil Case No. 70898 would
necessarily be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the Spouses
Singson.

Accordingly, the RTC Branch 264 correctly suspended the

proceedings in Criminal Case No. 137867 on the ground of prejudicial
question since, at the time the proceedings in the criminal case were
suspended, Civil Case No. 70898 was still pending.

Second Issue: Dismissal of the

petitioners' complaint in Civil Case
No. 70898

Under the Rules of Court, the parties and their counsel are mandated
to appear at the pre-trial. 59 Pre-trial cannot be taken for granted. It is not a
mere technicality in court proceedings for it serves a vital objective: the

56
Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. - In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34
and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended
party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action.
57
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely
separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
58
See Salta v. Hon. Judge De Veyra, etc., et al., 202 Phil. 527, 533 (1982), citing Dionisio, et al. v.
Hon. C. G. Aluendia, et al., 102 Phil. 443 (1957).
59
RULES OF COURT, Rule 18, Section 4.

/l
 Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936

simplification, abbreviation and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its

dispensation. 60 Thus, the failure of a party to appear at the pre-trial has
adverse consequences. If the absent party is the plaintiff, then his case shall
be dismissed, which shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the
court. If it is the defendant who fails to appear, then the plaintiff is allowed
. to present his evidence ex parte and the coun- shall render judgment on the
basis thereof. 61

Civil Case No. 70898 was initially set for pre-trial on February 7,
2008 .. In July 2010, after more than two years, Civil Case No. 70898, which
was still in the pre-trial stage, was re-raffled to Branch 264 presided by .
Judge Janolo; the latter immediately scheduled the pre-trial on August 25,
2010. What transpired thereafter is a series of resetting of the hearing dU:e to
the failure of the petitioners and/or their counsel to appear during the
scheduled pre-trial dates. During the scheduled pre-trial on Ma~ch 23, 2011,
the petitioners and their counsel again failed to appear without informing the
RTC of the reason for their non-appearance. Clearly, the petitioners' wanton
disregard of scheduled pre-trial indeed justified the dismissal of their
complaint.

It should be stressed that procedural rules are not to be disregarded or

· dismissed simply because their non-obserV'ance may have resulted in
prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules they are to be
followed, except only when for the most persuasive of reasons they may be
relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree
of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 62

The petitioners have not shown any persuasive reason, which would
justify a relaxation of the rules on pre-trial. That th~ petitioners' counsel
was supposedly indisposed during the pre-trial on March 23, 2011 does not
excuse the petitioners themselves from attending the pre-triaL Moreover,
the· petitioners have failed to advance any valid justification for their and
their counsel's failure to attend the previously scheduled pre-trial hearings.
Accordingly, the trial court could not be faulted for dismissing the complaint
under Section 5 of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.

The petitioners' claim that the motion. to dismiss filed by Engracia

with the RTC is a mere scrap of paper for her failure to comply with the
mandatory provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court
is without merit. Said sections provide that:

60
See The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company v. Enario, 645 Phil. 166, 176- ·
177 (2010).
61
See Tolentino, et al. v. laurel, et al., 682 Phil. 527, 536 (2012); RULES OF COURT, Rul_e 18,
Section 5.
62

/l
See Social Security System'v. Hon. Chaves, 483 Phil. 292, 301 (2004).
 Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936

Sec. 4. Hearing of motion. Except for motions which the court

may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every
written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.

Every written motion required to be heard and .the notice of the

hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by
the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, un~ess the
court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.

Sec. 5. Notice of hearing. The notice of hearing shall be addressed

to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing
which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.

Sec. 6. Proof of service necessary. No written motion set for

hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.

The pertinent portions of the motion to dismiss filed by Engracia with

the R TC read:

NOTICE

CLERK OF COURT
RTC, Branch 264 .
Pasig City [San Juan Station]

A TTY. EMERITO M. SALVA

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
15 111 Floor, Washington Tower, Asia World
Complex, Marina Bay, Pacific Avenue
Paranaque City

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing motion [in compliance with the order
of the Honorable Court during the hearing on March 23, 2011] for the
consideration and resolution of the Honorable Court immediately upon
receipt hereof.

(Sgd.)
TRISTRAM B. ZOLET A

EXPLANATION

Copy of this pleading was sent to the counsel for the plaintiffs
through registered mail due to lack of messenger at the time of service
rendering personal service not possible.

(Sgd.)
TRISTRAM B. ZOLETA63

(J]
Rollo (G.R. No. 207936), pp. 204-205.

f
 Decision 11 G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936

That the notice of hearing is addressed to the petitioners' counsel and

not to the petitioners directly is immaterial and would not be a caus~ to
consider the same defective. The requirement.under Section 4 of Rule 15 of
· the Rules of Cou~ that the notice be addressed to the opposing party is
merely directory; what matters is that adverse party had sufficient notice of
the hearing of the motion. 64 Further, even if the notice of hearing in the
motion to dismiss failed to state the exact date of hearing, the defect was
cured .when the RTC considered the same in the hearing that was held on
May 26, 2011 and by the fact that the petitioners, through. their counsel, .
were notified of the existence of the said motion. 65

Anent the supposed lack of proof.of service of the motion to dismiss

upon the petitioners, suffice it to state that a copy of the said· motion was
ser\red upon and received by the petitioners' counsel on April 15, 2011. 66
The petitioners were duly given the full opportunity to be heard and to argue
their case when the RTC required them to file a comment to the motion to
dismiss during the hearing on May 26, 2011, which they did on May 30, .
2011. 67 "What the law really eschews is not the lack of previous notice of
hearing but the lack of opportunity to be heard;' 68 ·

Considering, however, that the complaint in Civil Case No. 70898 had
already been dismissed with prejudice on account of the petitioners' and
their counsel's persistent failure to appear during the scheduled pre-trial
hearings, the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 137867 should now proceed.
There is no longer. any prejudicial question in Criminal Case No. 137867 ·
since the complaint in Civil Case No. 70898 had been dismissed without
definitely resolving the question of whether the signatures of the Spouses
Domingo in the Absolute Deed of Sale .are genuine. Thus, it is up for the
RTC Branch 264, in Criminal Case No. 137867, to resolve the said issue.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the petitions

in G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936 are hereby DENIED. The Decision dated
August 31, 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 122054 and the Decision dated June 28,
2013 in CA-G.R. CV No. 98026 issued by the Court of Appeals are hereby
AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch
264, is hereby DIRECTED to proceed with Criminal Case No. 137867 with
dispatch.

64
See Omico Mining and Industrial Corporation v. Judge Vallejos, 159 Phil. 886 (1975).
65
See Un Giok v. Matus a, et al., 10 I Phil. 727 ( 1957).
66
Rollo (G.R. No. 207936), p. 38.
67
68
Id. at 40.
See Patricio v. Judge Leviste, 254 Phil. 780, 786 (1989).
t
 Decision 12 G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936

SO ORDERED.

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

. WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO' J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

\~ / -

~~~~~~~tt~
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.

ssociate Justice
Chairperson

f
 Decision 13 G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 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

\".fl,FRF)UO V. LAPJl'AN
Divisio.I Clerk of Court
Third Division

JUN o 7 2017

11