J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

LEGAL NOTE 0045 – THE PESCANO CASE. ADDENDUM TO THE NOTE ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ.

SOURCE: VIEWPOINT – Spotless hands

By Juan Mercado

Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 06:33:00 03/22/2011 Filed Under: Impeachment, Military, Graft & Corruption

EXCERPT: THE PESTANO CASE:

Despite threats, 24-year-old Pestaño bucked loading 14,000 board feet of “hot” logs, shabu and guns aboard BRP Bacolod where he served as cargo master. His body, bearing gunshot wounds, was discovered in his cabin.

Suicide, ruled the Navy within 24 hours. The NBI waffled. No, Senate Report No. 800 bluntly countered. Pestaño was bludgeoned, shot to death, and his body rigged to appear he took his life, wrote Sen. Marcelo Fernan.

EXCERPT: OTHERS WERE ALSO KILLED OR DISAPPEARED

Among the desaparecidos is Zosimo Villanueva of Tawi-Tawi naval station. He tipped Pestaño on the hot logs and shabu. He was “lost at sea while on a mission.” The UN says, “Foul play is suspected.”

Bacolod City’s radio operator Fidel Tagaytay was ordered to report to Navy headquarters, says his wife Leonila. He too disappeared. There has been “no action/investigation by the Navy,” the UN snapped.

Ensign Alvin Farone was aboard the Bacolod when Pestaño was slain. He contacted Marissa, Pestaño’s sister, saying he wanted “to tell what really happened to Phillip.” A long silence followed. He died. And dead men tell no tales?

WHAT DID THE UN COMMISSION SAY?

For years, the ombudsman pooh-poohed Senate Report No. 800, Raul Pangalangan wrote in the Inquirer. But that precisely was the document the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva relied on. Here is the UP law professor’s concise summary:

“Close to 15 years elapsed since the death of the victim, the [parents] are still ignorant of the circumstances surrounding their son’s death, and [Philippine] authorities have yet to initiate an independent investigation.

“[T]he Ombudsman deemed it necessary to conduct further proceedings in [August 2007]. Since that date, no suspect was prosecuted, or tried, let alone convicted… The [Philippines is in] breach of its obligation … to properly investigate the death of [Philip], prosecute perpetrators, and ensure redress.”

EXCERPT: WHAT DID VIEWPOINT SAY?

“They were faceless, powerless enlisted men,” Viewpoint noted on Sept. 13, 2010. “They were like trees, felled in the forest. No one sees. No one knows. No one cares. Perhaps, impeachment may spark a glimmer of hope. Perhaps.”

FULL ARTICLE

WILL CONGRESS ram through Resolution 1089 and lob it to the Senate? The resolution impeaches Merceditas Gutierrez for “betrayal of public trust.” On the eve of a plenary vote, a once-foregone conclusion turned problematic.

Gutierrez embalmed cases like those of the euro generals and Mega Pacific computers, says the rap sheet. But Iglesia ni Cristo officials covertly badgered congressmen to spring Gutierrez, House justice committee chair Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. fumes. Bogus text messages threaten pork barrel cuts.

“The Ombudsman’s office … failed to act on any of 44 complaints alleging extrajudicial executions attributed to state agents,” UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Execution Philip Alston noted. “There is a passivity bordering on abdication of responsibility.”

Assuming the House doesn’t buckle, Gutierrez won’t be alone in the dock. With her will be a Senate still haunted by the “Craven Eleven” incident. That refers to the 11 senators who voted to seal the “second envelope” of evidence during the Joseph Estrada impeachment trial. This triggered People Power II.

“The Senate that will judge Merceditas is composed of ‘Craven Eleven’ remnants,” e-mailed Enrique Angeles from Buena Park, California. “These are Miriam Santiago, Juan Ponce Enrile, Gringo Honasan and Tito Sotto.”

“Big ticket items” like P728-million fertilizer mess and the $329-million NBN-ZTE scandal stoked intense interest. Do they bear fingerprints of former President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo and the former first gentleman as some insist?

Gutierrez thus finds in the same dock the invisible but felt presence of Arroyo and Consort. Hindi siya nag-iisa.

This battered country needs another marred impeachment process like a hole in the head. Gutierrez may not be “Ms Sunshine.” But she deserves a fair shake.

So do the complainants, like Felipe and Evelyn Pestaño. They have battled for 15 years to get justice for their murdered son Phillip, a Philippine Military Academy graduate.

Despite threats, 24-year-old Pestaño bucked loading 14,000 board feet of “hot” logs, shabu and guns aboard BRP Bacolod where he served as cargo master. His body, bearing gunshot wounds, was discovered in his cabin.

Suicide, ruled the Navy within 24 hours. The NBI waffled. No, Senate Report No. 800 bluntly countered. Pestaño was bludgeoned, shot to death, and his body rigged to appear he took his life, wrote Sen. Marcelo Fernan.

For years, the ombudsman pooh-poohed Senate Report No. 800, Raul Pangalangan wrote in the Inquirer. But that precisely was the document the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva relied on. Here is the UP law professor’s concise summary:

“Close to 15 years elapsed since the death of the victim, the [parents] are still ignorant of the circumstances surrounding their son’s death, and [Philippine] authorities have yet to initiate an independent investigation.

“[T]he Ombudsman deemed it necessary to conduct further proceedings in [August 2007]. Since that date, no suspect was prosecuted, or tried, let alone convicted… The [Philippines is in] breach of its obligation … to properly investigate the death of [Philip], prosecute perpetrators, and ensure redress.”

“Well, Gutierrez finally acted on the Pestaño plea,” Pangalangan wryly added. “She dismissed it. To add sting to the injury, she served her dismissal order on Pestaño’s parents the day after they signed the impeachment complaint against her.”

Space constraints probably didn’t allow the cerebral dean to amplify his statement: “The UN committee found that within four months of Pestaño’s death, three of his Navy comrades all died or disappeared in mysterious circumstances.”

May we stitch in details, drawn from the same UN report. A skewed justice system here results in a “voiceless legion of the walking dead (who) are no one’s constituency.”

Among the desaparecidos is Zosimo Villanueva of Tawi-Tawi naval station. He tipped Pestaño on the hot logs and shabu. He was “lost at sea while on a mission.” The UN says, “Foul play is suspected.”

Bacolod City’s radio operator Fidel Tagaytay was ordered to report to Navy headquarters, says his wife Leonila. He too disappeared. There has been “no action/investigation by the Navy,” the UN snapped.

Ensign Alvin Farone was aboard the Bacolod when Pestaño was slain. He contacted Marissa, Pestaño’s sister, saying he wanted “to tell what really happened to Phillip.” A long silence followed. He died. And dead men tell no tales?

The Pestaños claim that Farone’s demise was “suspicious. It should have been investigated.” Again, the Philippines didn’t even comment on this case.

“They were faceless, powerless enlisted men,” Viewpoint noted on Sept. 13, 2010. “They were like trees, felled in the forest. No one sees. No one knows. No one cares. Perhaps, impeachment may spark a glimmer of hope. Perhaps.”

Possible resource persons, meanwhile fidget. Former Agriculture Secretary Luis Lorenzo skipped town in 2005, hours before the Senate started its inquiry into fertilizer fraud to bankroll Arroyo’s election. Undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc-joc” Bolante scrammed a year later.

The Senate blue ribbon committee, Commission on Audit and Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism confirmed the fraud. So did thousands of farmers.

Deported after his US asylum petition was rejected, Bolante today blames Lorenzo who pledges to cooperate with the Aquino administration. Two former fugitives squealing before an impeachment court guarantees drama.

Will the judges have, as the Italians say, mani politi (clean hands)?

(E-mail: juanlmercado@gmail.com)

LEGAL NOTE 00044: WHAT IS QUESTION OF FACT? WHAT IS QUESTION OF LAW?

SOURCE: F.A.T. KEE COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. VS. ONLINE NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL, INC. (G.R. NO. 171238, 2 FEBRUARY 2011, LEONARDO – DE CASTRO, J.) SUBJECTS: FAILURE TO ATTACH TSNs TO PETITION; QUESTION OF FACT VIS A VIS QUESTION OF LAW. (BRIEF TITLE: F.A.T. KEE VS. ONLINE).

WHEN DOES QUESTION OF LAW ARISE?

 WHEN THERE IS DOUBT AS TO WHAT THE LAW IS ON A CERTAIN STATE OF FACTS. FOR A QUESTION TO BE ONE OF LAW, THE SAME MUST NOT INVOLVE AN EXAMINATION OF THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE LITIGANTS OR ANY OF THEM.^[63]

WHEN DOES QUESTON OF FACT ARISE?

WHEN THE DOUBT ARISES AS TO THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE ALLEGED FACTS.

As to the substantive issues raised in the instant petition, the Court finds that, indeed, questions of fact are being invoked by FAT KEE.  A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.  For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.^[63]

WHAT MUST A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI RAISE?

ONLY QUESTION OF LAW WHICH MUST BE DISTINCTLY SET FORTH.

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION?

YES, AS WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE CA AND RTC ARE CONFLICTING.

Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court dictates that a petition for review on certiorari “shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth.”^[64]  This rule is, however, subject to exceptions,^[65] one of which is when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and the RTC are conflicting.  

HOW DOES IT APPLIES TO THE CASE ABOVE?

. . .  Said exception applies to the instant case.

Substantially, FAT KEE primarily argues there was neither any agreement to enter into a foreign currency-based transaction, nor to use a dollar exchange rate of P37:US$1.  The invoice receipts denominated in US dollars were unilaterally prepared by ONLINE.  Similarly, the Accounting Department of ONLINE required that the Purchase Order to be submitted by FAT KEE be denominated in US dollars and Frederick Huang, Jr. merely complied with the same upon the instructions of Payoyo.  Contrary to ONLINE’s claim, it issued the SOA dated December 9, 1997 with the alleged unpaid obligation of FAT KEE quoted in Philippine pesos.  FAT KEE also takes issue with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that it assented to the payment in US dollars of the transactions covered under Invoice Nos. 4680, 4838, 5090 and 5096.  Lastly, FAT KEE reiterates the ruling of the RTC that ONLINE was estopped from seeking payment in US dollars since the outstanding obligation of FAT KEE was denominated in Philippine pesos in the SOA dated December 9, 1997.  Claiming that the SOA was its only basis for payment, FAT KEE allegedly paid its obligations in accordance therewith and ONLINE duly accepted the payments.

After a meticulous review of the records, we resolve to deny the petition.

^[1]               Rollo, pp. 11-31.

^[2]               Id. at 32-42; penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga with Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, concurring.

^[3]               Id. at 129-135; penned by Judge Oscar B. Pimentel.

^[4]               Records, pp. 1-7.

^[5]               Id. at 100-103.

^[6]               Id.

^[7]               Id. at 3.

^[8]               The total amount due as computed by ONLINE, plus 28% interest per annum for three months, was P3,012,636.17.  However, this is inaccurate.  The said amount is the result obtained upon the application of the 28% interest on the alleged unpaid balance of P2,943,944.14 for a period of one (1) month only.  A recomputation of the figures shows that the correct total amount should have been P3,150,020.23.      

^[9]               Records, pp. 37-45.

^[10]             Id. at 175.

^[11]             TSN, July 29, 1999, p. 6.

^[12]             Id. at 9.

^[13]             Id. at 14-15.

^[14]             Id. at 18.

^[15]             Id. at 20.

^[16]             Id. at 24.

^[17]             Id. at 24-25.

^[18]             Records, pp. 118-119.

^[19]             TSN, July 29, 1999, p. 27.

^[20]             The Purchase Order was dated November 26, 1997; records, p. 120.

^[21]             TSN, August 5, 1999, p. 7.

^[22]             Records, p. 121.

^[23]             TSN, August 5, 1999, pp. 12-13.

^[24]             Id. at 20-22.

^[25]             Id. at 26.

^[26]             TSN, September 7, 1999, p. 7.

^[27]             Id. at 9-10.

^[28]             Id. at 12-13.

^[29]             Id. at 14-15.

^[30]             Id. at 17.

^[31]             Id. at 21.

^[32]             The amount stated in Invoice No. 4680 was $66,954.70, while the amount in Invoice No. 4838 was $44,177.45.

^[33]             By dividing the amounts in Philippine pesos by the amounts in US dollars.

^[34]             TSN, November 11, 1999, pp. 18-20.

^[35]             The amount stated in Invoice No. 5090 was $11,297.28, while the amount in Invoice No. 5096 was $13,720.00.

^[36]             TSN, February 23, 2000, pp. 13-14.

^[37]             Id. at 16.

^[38]             Id. at 17.

^[39]             Id. at 20-21.

^[40]             Id. at 22.

^[41]             TSN, May 11, 2000, p. 20.

^[42]             Id. at 21-22.

^[43]             TSN, June 15, 2000, p. 5.

^[44]             Id. at 7-9.

^[45]             Id. at 9-10.

^[46]             Id. at 13-14.

^[47]             Id. at 15-16.

^[48]             Id. at 18-20.

^[49]             Id. at 29.

^[50]             Rollo, pp. 132-134.

^[51]             Records, pp. 265-287.

^[52]             Id. at 311-312.

^[53]             Id. at 313-316.

^[54]             Rollo, p. 36.

^[55]             Id. at 36-39.

^[56]             Id. at 39-40.

^[57]             Id. at 40-42.

^[58]             CA rollo, pp. 201-208.

^[59]             SEC. 4. Contents of petition. – The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition; (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition; and (e) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. (Emphasis ours.)

^[60]             SEC. 7. Pleadings and documents that may be required; sanctions. – For purposes of determining whether the petition should be dismissed or denied pursuant to section 5 of this Rule, or where the petition is given due course under section 8 hereof, the Supreme Court may require or allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it may deem necessary within such periods and under such conditions as it may consider appropriate, and impose the corresponding sanctions in case of non-filing or unauthorized filing of such pleadings and documents or non-compliance with the conditions therefor.

^[61]             See Grand Boulevard Hotel v. Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries (GLOWHRAIN), 454 Phil. 463 (2003).

^[62]             Rules of Court, Rule 1, Section 6.

^[63]             Tirazona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169712, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 560, 581.

^[64]             SEC. 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. – A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency. (As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC.)

^[65]             The exceptions are: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126850, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 79, 85-86.)

^[66]             G.R. No. 163583, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 511.

^[67]             Id. at 536-537.

^[68]             338 Phil. 274 (1997).

^[69]             Id. at 286-287.

^[70]             Records, pp. 104-111.

LEGAL NOTE 0043: ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE NOT AUTOMATIC IN CASE YOU WIN A CASE. HERE ARE SOME BASIC NOTES ON ATTORNEY’S FEES.

SOURCE: OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS (PHILS), INC.  VS. NESTOR N. BARRETTO, DOING BUSINESS AS N.N.B. LIGHTERAGE (G.R. NO. 184215, 9 FEBRUARY 2011, PEREZ, J.) SUBJECTS: MARITIME CASE; NEGLIGENCE OF COMMON CARRIER; COMPENSATORY DAMAGES DEPENDS ON PLEADING AND PROOF; ATTORNEYS FEES NOT AUTOMATIC FOR WINNING CASES. (BRIEF TITLE: OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS VS. BARRETO).

IN CASE A PARTY PREVAILS IN A CASE, IS HE AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES?

NO, IN VIEW OF THE POLICY THAT NO PREMIUM SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE.

. . . Being the exception rather than the rule,^[67] attorney’s fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit,^[68] in view of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.

X WAS COMPELLED TO LIGITAGE WITH THIRD PERSONS, IS HE AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES?

NO WHERE THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF BAD FAITH.

. . . Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where, as here, no sufficient showing of bad faith can be reflected in the party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.^[70]

WHEN CAN ATTORNEY’S FEES BE RECOVERED?

WHERE THERE IS STIPULATION OR WHEN COVERED UNDER ARTICLE 2208 OF THE CIVIL CODE.

. . . In the absence of stipulation, after all, the rule is settled that there can be no recovery of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation other than judicial costs except in the instances enumerated under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.^[66]

IN THE CASE ABOVE, HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE ISSUE ON ATTORNEY’S FEES?

For lack of sufficient showing of bad faith on the part of Barretto, we find that the CA, finally, erred in granting Oceaneering’s claim for attorney’s fees, albeit in the much reduced sum of P30,000.00.  In the absence of stipulation, after all, the rule is settled that there can be no recovery of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation other than judicial costs except in the instances enumerated under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.^[66] Being the exception rather than the rule,^[67] attorney’s fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit,^[68] in view of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.^[69]Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where, as here, no sufficient showing of bad faith can be reflected in the party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.^[70]

^[1]               CA rollo, CV No. 87168, pp. 165-183.

^[2]               Id. at 183.

^[3]               Exhibit “A,” Records, Civil Case No. 87168, p. 199.

^[4]               Exhibit “C”, id. at 201.

^[5]               Exhibit “2”, id. at 448.

^[6]               Exhibits “E” to “E-2”, id. at 203-205.

^[7]               TSN, 20 April 2001, pp. 5-6.

^[8]               Records, pp. 204-205.

^[9]               TSN, 27 March 2003, pp. 18-24.

^[10]             Id. at 19-20.

^[11]             Exhibit “3,” Records, Civil Case No. 87168, p. 449.

^[12]             Exhibit “F”, id. at 206.

^[13]             Exhibit “21”, id. at 465.

^[14]             Exhibit “23”, id. at 468-469.

^[15]             Exhibit “22”, id. at 466-467.

^[16]             Exhibit “M”, id. at 215.

^[17]             Exhibit “25”, id. at 471.

^[18]             Id. at 1-26.

^[19]             Id. at 51-59.

^[20]             Id. at 104.

^[21]             TSN, 10 December 1999; 12 January, 2001; 4 April 2000; 1 September 2000.

^[22]             TSN, 8 December 2000.

^[23]             TSN, 20 April 2001.

^[24]             TSN, 24 October 2002; 27 March 2003; 8 May 2003.

^[25]             TSN, 15 May 2003.

^[26]             TSN, 3 July 2003.

^[27]             TSN, 14 August 2003.

^[28]             TSN, 28 August 2003.

^[29]             TSN, 4 December 2003.

^[30]             Records, Civil Case No. 87168, pp. 195-217; 434-506; 539-543.

^[31]             Id. at 229; 512; 553; 560-561.

^[32]             Id. at 635-663.

^[33]             Id. at 668-679.

^[34]             Id. at 686-689.

^[35]             CA rollo, CV No.  87168, pp. 40-82.

^[36]             Id. at 165-183.

^[37]             Id. at 185-203.

^[38]             Id. at 227-230.

^[39]             Rollo, p. 18.

^[40]             Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. vs. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups, Inc., 566 SCRA 473, 485.

^[41]             Spouses Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 338, 353 (1999).

^[42]             Filipinas (Pre-Fab Bldg.) Systems, Inc. vs. MRT Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167829-30, 13 November 2007, 537 SCRA 609, 640, citing Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 11053, 16 October 1996, 249 SCRA 331.

^[43]             Canada vs. All Commodities Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 146141, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA 321, 329.

^[44]             Manila Electric Corporation vs. T.E.A.M. Electronics Corporation, G.R. No. 131723, 13 December 2007, 540 SCRA 62, 79.

^[45]             Luxuria Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 989, 1001-1002, (1999).

^[46]             MCC Industrial Sales Corporation vs. Ssangayong Corporation, G.R. No. 153051, 18 October 2007, 536 SCRA 408, 467-468.

^[47]             Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Dynamic Planners and Construction Corp., G.R. Nos. 169408 & 170144, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 541, 567 .

^[48]             Santiago vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127440, 26 January 2007, 513 SCRA 69, 86.

^[49]             Exhibit “23”, Records, Civil Case No. 87168, pp. 468-469.

^[50]             Exhibit “25”, id. at 471.

^[51]             Id. at 56-57.

^[52]             Exhibit “5”, id. at 451.

^[53]             TSN, 27 March 2003, pp. 7-8.

^[54]             Exhibits “5” and “6”, Records, Civil Case No. 87168, pp. 451-452.

^[55]             Exhibit “10”, id. at 454.

^[56]             Exhibits “11” and “12”, id. at 455-456.

^[57]             Exhibit “15”, id. at 458.

^[58]             Exhibits “16” and “17”, id. at 459.

^[59]             Exhibits “8” and “9”, id. at 453.

^[60]             Exhibits “13” and “14”, id. at 457, Exhibit “27”; id. at 472.

^[61]             Exhibit “28”, id. at 473.

^[62]             Exhibit “29” and submarkings, id. at 474-475.

^[63]             Exhibit “25”, id. at 471.

^[64]             Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-46558, 31 July 1981, 106 SCRA, 391, 412.

^[65]             G.R. No. 97412, 12 July 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 96-97.

^[66]             Scott Consultants & Resource Development Corporation, Inc. vs. CA, 312 Phil. 466, 480 (1995).

^[67]             Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 504, 518-519 (1996).

^[68]             Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation vs. Kamalig Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 165608, 13 December 2007, 540 SCRA 139, 159.    

^[69]             Frias vs. San Diego-Sison, G.R. No. 155223, 3 April 2007, 520 SCRA 244, 259-260.

^[70]             Felsan Realty & Development Corporation vs. Commonwealth of Australia, G.R. No. 169656, 11 October 2007, 535 SCRA 618, 632.