EN BANC
MANILA ELECTRIC
COMPANY,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
101783
January 23, 2002 - versus-
PHILIPPINE
CONSUMERS
FOUNDATION, INC.,EDGARDO
S. ISIP,
HON. JUDGE MANUEL M. CALANOG, JR.,AND HON.
JUDGE TIRSO
D.C. VELASCO,
Respondents
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
Interest republicae
ut sit finis litium[1]
- it is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to
litigation
by the same parties and their privies over a subject fully and fairly
adjudicated.
From this overwhelming concern springs the doctrine of res judicata -
an
obvious rule of reason according stability to judgments.
Challenged in this petition
for review on certiorari are the a) Decision in Civil Case No.
Q-89-3659
dated January 16, 1991 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 76, Quezon
City;[2]
and b) its Order dated September 10, 1991[3]
denying the motion for reconsideration of the said Decision.cralaw:red
The pertinent facts
are:
On September 11, 1974,
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, with the objective of enabling
the
grantees of electric franchises to reduce their rates "within the reach
of consumers",[4]
promulgated Presidential Decree No. 551[5]
providing for the reduction from 5% to 2% of the franchise tax paid by
electric companies, thus:
"SECTION 1. Any provision
of law or local ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding, the
franchise
tax payable by all grantees of franchises to generate, distribute and
sell
electric current for light, heat and power shall be two (2%) of their
gross
receipts received from the sale of electric current and from
transactions
incident to the generation, distribution and sale of electric current."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 5, 1982,
the Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc., (PCFI) filed with the Board
of Energy (BOE) a "Petition for Specific Performance, Damages and
Violation
of P. D. No. 551"[6]
against the Manila Electric Company (Meralco), docketed as BOE Case No.
82-198. PCFI sought for the immediate refund by Meralco to its
customers
of all the savings it realized under P.D. No. 551, through the
reduction
of its franchise tax from 5% to 2%, with interest at the legal rate;
and
for the payment of damages and a fine in the amount of P50, 000.00 for
violating P.D. 551. It moored its petition on Section 4 of P.D. No. 551
which provides:
"Sec. 4. All the savings
realized by electric franchise holders from the reduction of the
franchise
tax under Section 1 and tariff reductions and tax credits under
Sections
2 and 3, shall be passed on to the ultimate consumer. The Secretary of
Finance shall promulgate rules and regulations and devise a reporting
systems
to carry out the provisions of this Decree."
In its answer to the
petition, Meralco alleged that it was duly authorized by the BOE in its
Order dated March 10, 1980 in BOE Case No. 79-692 to retain the
disputed
savings; and that the said Order had long become final.cralaw:red
On November 25, 1982,
the BOE issued its Decision dismissing PCFI's petition, declaring that
Meralco was indeed authorized by the BOE, in BOE Case No. 79-692, to
retain
the disputed savings under P.D. 551, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"It is at once evident
from the foregoing controlling facts and circumstances, particularly
the
Order of this Board dated March 10, 1980, as confirmed by the
reply-letter
dated March 3, 1981, that Meralco has been duly authorized to retain
the
savings realized under the provisions of P.D. 551. The authority
granted
in the said Order and letter is so clear and unequivocal as to leave
any
room for contradictory interpretation. This Board, therefore, holds as
untenable petitioner's claim that respondent Meralco was never
authorized
under the said Order and letter to hold on to the savings realized
under
the said decree.cralaw:red
"The Board likewise
finds to be devoid of merit petitioner's contention that pursuant to
Opinion
No. 140, Series of 1979, of the Minister of Justice, it is absolutely
mandatory
on the part of respondent Meralco to pass on to its customers the
savings
under consideration. It must be pointed out that the Order of March 10,
1980 was issued by this Board on the basis of the recommendation
contained
in the Memorandum dated November 30, 1979 of the Minister of Finance,
which
was approved by the President of the Philippines in his directive to
this
Board dated December 11, 1979 issued thru Presidential Executive
Assistant
Jacobo Clave. This Board believes and so holds that the approval by the
President of the Philippines of the aforesaid Finance Ministry's
recommendation
had the effects of (a) reversing or modifying the aforementioned
Opinion
of the Minister of Justice; and (b) confirming the promulgation by the
Ministry of Finance, conformably with the specific authority granted it
under P.D. No. 551, of an additional rule or regulation for the
implementation
of the said decree for the guidance of this Board. In issuing the Order
of March 10, 1980, therefore, the Board has done no more than follow
and
be guided by the said additional rule or regulation.cralaw:red
"It is noteworthy to
mention also that the registered oppositors in BOE Case No. 79-692
(formerly
BPW Case No. 72-2146), where the respondent herein originally filed its
motion requesting for authority to defer the passing on to its
customers
of the franchise tax reduction benefits under P.D. No. 551, have done
nothing
to seek relief from or to appeal to the appropriate forum, the said
Order
of March 10, 1980. As a consequence, the disposition contained therein
have long become final.cralaw:red
x x x x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"That Meralco has been
authorized to retain the savings resulting from the reduction of the
franchise
tax under P.D. No. 551 is, therefore beyond question."[7]
(Emphasis supplied)
PCFI filed a motion
for reconsideration but was denied by the BOE. Hence, PCFI filed a
Petition
for Certiorari with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 63018. In a
Resolution
dated October 22, 1985, this Court dismissed the petition for lack of
merit,
holding that:
"We see no grave abuse
of discretion warranting the setting aside of the BOE order.cralaw:red
"P.D. No. 551 ordered
the Minister of Finance to issue implementing rules and regulations.
The
Minister authorized all grantees of electric franchises, not Meralco
alone,
whose rates of return on their rate bases were below the legal
allowable
level to either ask for increased rates or to defer the passing on of
benefits
under the decree to consumers until just and reasonable returns could
be
had. Lengthy investigations, audits, hearings, and determinations over
practically an eight year period preceded the questioned decision. The
petitioners failed both below and in this petition to successfully
refute
the facts ascertained in the audits and examinations. The BOE approved
option formed the basis of subsequent determinations of Meralco rates
and
the adopted formula became the basis of computations. When this
petition
was filed on January 27, 1983, the November 25, 1982 ruling was already
final and executory. Moreover, the March 10, 1980 judgment rendered in
BOE Case No. 79-692, where Meralco had filed a motion for authority to
defer passing on to customers the savings from the reduction of
franchise
taxes, was not appealed or questioned by the petitioners. Instead, they
filed BOE Case No. 82-198 on February 5, 1982 or almost two years
later,
raising the same issues against the same parties. BOE's questioned
decision
in Case No. 82-198 used the facts in BOE Case No. 79-692 for its
conclusions.
Not only had the March 10, 1980 decision confirmed the findings of the
Minister of Finance on Meralco's accounts and finances but in filing
the
second case, the petitioners were asking for a readjudication of the
same
issues in another challenge to these same findings .x x x."[8]
(Emphasis supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Four years thereafter,
PCFI and a certain Edgardo S. Isip, private respondents herein, filed
with
respondent Regional Trial Court, Branch 76, Quezon City, a petition for
declaratory relief, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-89-3659. Private
respondents
prayed for a ruling on who should be entitled to the savings realized
by
Meralco under P.D. No. 551. Once again, they insisted that pursuant to
Section 4 of P.D. No. 551, the savings belong to the ultimate consumers.cralaw:red
Meralco, in its answer,
prayed for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of res judicata,
citing this Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 63018 which affirmed the
BOE's
Decision in BOE Case No. 82-198.cralaw:red
On January 16, 1991,
respondent RTC rendered the assailed Decision declaring null and void
the
Resolution of this Court in G.R. No. 63018 and on the basis of the
Dissenting
Opinion of the late Justice Claudio Teehankee, held that the disputed
savings
belong to the consumers, thus:
"Respondent Meralco's
theory is devoid of merit. As correctly stated in the dissenting
opinion
of the late Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee in the October 22, 1985
resolution
of the Supreme Court in SC G.R. No. 63018, the decision of the Board of
Energy is ultra vires, hence, null and void. x x x.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"It is a well-settled
rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear, it leaves no
room for interpretation. The memorandum issued by the Minister of
Finance
which was made the basis of the decision of the Board of Energy has no
legal effect because Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 551 is clear and unequivocal.cralaw:red
x x x x x x
"Since the law is clear,
what is left to be done by the administrative body or agency concerned
is to enforce the law. There is no room for an administrative
interpretation
of the law. In the instant case, the Board interpreted PD 551 and chose
not only to enforce it but to amend and modify the law on the basis of
a Memorandum and the authority issued by the Minister of Finance to all
grantees of electric-franchises, not Meralco alone, whose rates of
return
on their rate basis were below the legal allowable level, to either ask
for an increased rates or to defer the passing on of benefits under the
decree to consumers, until just and reasonable return could be had.
This
is beyond the authority granted by PD 551 to the Minister of Finance.
PD
551 merely ordered the Minister of Finance to issue implementing rules
and regulations. He cannot amend or modify the clear mandate of the
law.
The act therefore of the Minister of Finance was ultra vires, hence,
null
and void. Considering that said act became the basis of the Board of
Energy's
decision, it follows that said decision is likewise null and void and
the
Supreme Court resolution affirming said decision is also null and void
having proceeded from a void judgment, hence, cannot be considered as
valid
judgment that will be a bar to the present action."[9]
(Emphasis supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meralco moved for a
reconsideration of the above Decision but was denied by respondent
court
in its Order of September 10, 1991.cralaw:red
Hence, Meralco's petition
for review on certiorari anchored on the following grounds:
"I
RESPONDENT JUDGES
ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT CIVIL CASE NO. 89-3659 IS NOT BARRED BY PRIOR JUDGMENT.
II
RESPONDENT JUDGES
ERRED
IN DECLARING NULL AND VOID A RESOLUTION OF THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT.
III
RESPONDENT JUDGES
ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT THE REMEDY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS STILL AVAILABLE TO
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.
IV
RESPONDENT JUDGES
ERRED
IN NOT DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF."[10]
Meralco contends that
Civil Case No. Q -89-3659 is already barred by prior judgments,
referring
to a) this Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 63018 sustaining the BOE's
Decision
in BOE Case No. 82-198; and b) the Order dated March 10, 1980 of the
same
Board in BOE Case No. 79-692, both holding that Meralco is authorized
to
retain its savings realized under P.D. 551. Meralco likewise argues
that
respondent RTC cannot annul the Resolution of this Court in G.R. No.
63018
considering that trial courts cannot set aside decisions of a superior
court. And lastly, Meralco maintains that private respondents can no
longer
avail of the remedy of an action for declaratory relief in view of the
rule that such action should be filed before a violation of the statute
occurred.[11]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their comment,[12]
private respondents argue that this Court's Resolution in G.R. No.
63018
cannot be a bar to Civil Case No. Q-89-3659 for declaratory relief
considering
that it did not delve on the essential issue raised in the latter case,
i.e., who is entitled to the savings. Further, they claim that public
interest
would be defeated by the application of res judicata.cralaw:red
The petition is meritorious.cralaw:red
The issue - whether
or not Meralco is duly authorized to retain the savings resulting from
the reduction of the franchise tax under P.D. No. 551 as long as its
rate
of return falls below the 12 % allowable rate recognized in this
jurisdiction
– has long been settled. Thus, the relitigation of the same issue in
Civil
Case No. Q-89-3659 cannot be sanctioned under the principle of res
judicata.cralaw:red
Res judicata means a
matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or
matter
settled by judgment.[13]
In res judicata, the judgment in the first action is considered
conclusive
as to every matter offered and received therein, as to any other
admissible
matter which might have been offered for that purpose, and all other
matters
that could have been adjudged therein.[14]
For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the following requisites must
concur:
1) there must be a final judgment or order; 2) the court rendering it
must
have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; 3) it must
be
a judgment or order on the merits; and 4) there must be, between the
two
cases identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All the above requisites
are extant in the records and thus, beyond dispute.cralaw:red
Re: FIRST REQUISITE
- there must be a final judgment:
It is beyond question
that this Court's Resolution dated October 22, 1985 in G.R. No. 63018,
sustaining the BOE's Decision dated November 25, 1982 in BOE Case No.
82-198
which dismissed PCFI's petition, attained finality on December 4, 1985.
As a matter of fact, this Court had long ago issued an Entry of
Judgment
stating that the said Resolution "became final and executory and is x x
x recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments." Prior thereto, or on
March
10, 1980, the BOE's Order in BOE Case No. 79-672 became final when the
oppositors therein did not appeal.cralaw:red
Re: SECOND REQUISITE
- the court which rendered the final judgment must have jurisdiction
over
the subject matter and the parties:
There is no question
that the BOE has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties
herein.
Under P.D. No. 1206,[16]
The BOE is the agency authorized to "regulate and fix the power rates
to
be charged by electric companies."[17]
As such, it has jurisdiction over Meralco, an electric company, and
over
the savings it realized under P.D. No. 551. It bears stressing that
P.D.
No. 551 was passed precisely to enable the grantees of electric
franchises
to reduce their rates within the reach of consumers. Clearly, the
matter
on how the disputed savings should be disposed of in order to realize a
reduction of rates is within the competence of the BOE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Re: THIRD REQUISITE
- it must be a judgment or order on the merits:
The BOE's Decision in
BOE Case No. 82-198 is a judgment on the merits. A judgment is on the
merits
when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on
the
disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory
objections.
After according both parties the opportunities to be heard, the BOE
disposed
of the controversy by resolving the rights of the parties under P.D.
No.
551. In its Decision, the BOE declared in clear and unequivocal manner
that Meralco "has been duly authorized to retain the savings realized
under
the provisions of P.D. No. 551" and that private respondent PCFI's
argument
to the contrary is "untenable." The BOE's Decision was upheld by this
Court
in G.R. No. 63018.cralaw:red
Re: FOURTH REQUISITE
- there must be between the two cases identity of parties, subject
matter
and causes of action:
There is identity of
parties between the two cases. BOE Case No. 82-198 was a contest
between
private respondent PCFI, as petitioner, and Meralco, as respondent.
Civil
Case No. Q-89-3659 involves the same contenders, except that respondent
Edgardo Isip joined PCFI as a plaintiff. But his inclusion as such
plaintiff
is inconsequential. A party by bringing forward, in a second case,
additional
parties cannot escape the effects of the principle of res judicata when
the facts remain the same. Res judicata is not defeated by a minor
difference
of parties, as it does not require absolute but only substantial
identity
of parties.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The subject matters
of BOE Case No. 82-198 and Civil Case No. Q-89-3659 are likewise
identical
since both refer to the savings realized by Meralco from the reduction
of the franchise tax under P.D. No. 551. The subject matter of an
action
refers to the thing, wrongful act, contract or property which is
directly
involved in the action, concerning which the wrong has been done and
with
respect to which the controversy has arisen.[19]
In both cases, the controversy is how the disputed savings shall be
disposed
of - whether they shall be retained by Meralco or be passed on to the
consumers.cralaw:red
With respect to identity
of causes of action, this requisite is likewise present. In both cases,
the act alleged to be in violation of the legal right of private
respondents
is Meralco's retention of the savings it realized under P.D. No. 551.
While
it is true that BOE Case No. 82-198 is one for specific performance,
while
Civil Case No. Q-89-3659 is for declaratory relief - in the ultimate -
both are directed towards only one relief, i.e., the refund of the
disputed
savings to the consumers. To seek a court's declaration on who should
benefit
from the disputed savings (whether Meralco or the consumers) will
result
in the relitigation of an issue fairly and fully adjudicated in BOE
Case
No. 82-198.cralaw:red
Clearly, the test of
identity of causes of action lies not in the form of an action. The
difference
of actions in the aforesaid cases is of no moment. The doctrine of res
judicata still applies considering that the parties were litigating for
the same thing and more importantly, the same contentions.[20]
As can be gleaned from the records, private respondents' arguments in
Civil
Case No. Q-89-3659 bear extreme resemblance with those raised in BOE
Case
No. 82-198.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent RTC's Decision
granting PCFI and Isip's petition for declaratory relief is in direct
derogation
of the principle of res judicata. Twice, it has been settled that
Meralco
is duly authorized to retain the savings it realized under P.D. No. 551
as long as its rate of return falls below the 12% allowable rate. The
pronouncement
of the BOE in BOE Case No. 82-198 finding such fact to be "beyond
question"
is clear and not susceptible of equivocation. This pronouncement was
sustained
by this Court in G.R. No. 63018. In finding no grave abuse of
discretion
on the part of the BOE, this Court saw the wisdom of its assailed
Decision.
Thus, this Court held: "[I]n dismissing the petition for specific
performance,
the BOE authorized Meralco, in lieu of increasing its rates to get a
more
reasonable return on investments while at the same time refunding to
consumers
the benefit of P.D. No. 551, to instead defer the passing on of
benefits
but without the planned increases. Instead of giving back money to
consumers
and then taking back the same in terms of increased rates, Meralco was
allowed by the BOE to follow the more simplified and rational
procedure."[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondents
now argue that G.R. No. 63018 merely decreed the postponement of the
passing
of Meralco's savings to the consumers until it could increase its rate
charges. On this point, this Court categorically ruled:
"X x x. And finally,
as stated by the Solicitor General, if only to put the issue to final
rest,
BOE's decision authorizing Meralco to retain the savings resulting from
the reduction of franchise tax as long as its rate of return falls
below
the 12% allowable rate is supported by P.D. No. 551, the rules and
administrative
orders of the Ministry of Finance which had been duly authorized by the
decree itself and by directives of the President to carry out the
provisions
of the decree, and most of all by equitable economic considerations
without
which the decree would lose its purpose and viability."[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Corollarily, let it
not be overlooked that the purpose of an action for declaratory relief
is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations
of
the parties under a statute, deed, contract etc. for their guidance in
the enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, and not to settle
issues
arising from an alleged breach thereof. It may be entertained only
before
the breach or violation of the statute, deed, contract etc., to which
it
refers.[23]
The petition gives a practical remedy in ending controversies which
have
not reached the stage where other relief is immediately available. It
supplies
the need for a form of action that will set controversies at rest
before
they lead to repudiation of obligations, invasion of rights, and the
commission
of wrongs.[24]
Here, private respondents brought the petition for declaratory relief
long
after the alleged violation of P.D. No. 551.cralaw:red
Lastly, we are dismayed
by respondent RTC's adherence to the Dissenting Opinion, instead of the
Majority Opinion, of the members of this Court in G.R. No. 63018, as
well
as its temerity to declare a Resolution of this Court "null and void"
and
"cannot be considered as valid judgment that will be a bar to the
present
action."
A lower court cannot
reverse or set aside decisions or orders of a superior court,
especially
of this Court, for to do so will negate the principle of hierarchy of
courts
and nullify the essence of review. A final judgment, albeit erroneous,
is binding on the whole world. Thus, it is the duty of the lower courts
to obey the Decisions of this Court and render obeisance to its status
as the apex of the hierarchy of courts. "A becoming modesty of inferior
courts demands conscious realization of the position that they occupy
in
the interrelation and operation of the integrated judicial system of
the
nation."[25]
"There is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts
should take their bearings," as eloquently declared by Justice J. B. L.
Reyes.[26]
Respondent RTC, and
for this matter, all lower courts, ought to be reminded that a final
and
executory decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no
matter
how erroneous it may be. Although judicial determinations are not
infallible,
judicial error should be corrected through appeals, not through
repeated
suits on the same claim.[27]
In setting aside the Resolution and Entry of Judgment of this Court in
G.R. No. 63018, respondent court grossly violated basic rules of civil
procedure.cralaw:red
In fine, we stress that
the rights of Meralco under P.D. No. 551, as determined by the BOE and
sustained by this Court, have acquired the character of res judicata
and
can no longer be challenged.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby GRANTED. The assailed RTC Decision dated January 16, 1991 and
Order dated September 10, 1991 in Civil Case No. Q-89-3659 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo,
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo,
Buena,
Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Carpio, JJ., concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Aldovino v. National Labor Relations Commission, 298 SCRA 526 (1998).
[2]
Then presided by former Judge Manuel Calanog, Jrchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rendered by then Judge Tirso Velasco, Pairing Judge in the same Branch.
[4]
"WHEREAS, the grantees of electric franchises are unable to reduce
their
rates due to their high cost of operation;
WHEREAS,
there is a need to provide electric current for light, heat and power
at
a cost within the reach of consumers;
WHEREAS,
assistance to the franchise holders by reducing some of their tax and
tariff
obligations is imperative to attain the above objectives."
[5]
"Lowering the Cost to Consumers of Electricity by Reducing the
Franchise
Tax Payable by Electric Franchise Holders and the Tariff on Fuel Oils
for
the Generation of Electric Power by Public Utilities."
[6]
Rollo, pp. 31-38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, pp. 50-52.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 60-61.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 22-24.
[10]
Rollo, pp. 5-6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, pp. 6-18.
[12]
Rollo, pp. 72-85.
[13]
46 Am Jur § 514.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Manalo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124204, April 20, 2001.
[15]
Sta. Lucia and Development, Inc., v. Cabrigas, G.R. No. 134895, June
19,
2001; Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122807, July 5, 1996;
Mangoma
v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 21 (1995).
[16]
Otherwise known as "Creating the Department of Energy," This was
amended
by Presidential Decree No. 1573.
[17]
Section 9 (c) of P.D. No. 1206 as amended by P.D. No. 1573.
[18]
Nery v. Leyson, 339 SCRA 232 (2000) citing Sempio v. Court of Appeals,
284 SCRA 580 (1998); Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila v. Court of
Appeals, 279 SCRA 711 (1997); Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA
492
(1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Regalado, Remedial law Compendium, Sixth Revised Edition, 1997, p. 20.
[20]
Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, supra.
[21]
Rollo, p.60.
[22]
Rollo, p.61.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Rosello-Bentir v. Leanda, 330 SCRA 591 (2000).
[24]
Herrera, Remedial Law III, Revised Edition, 1996, pp. 124-125.
[25]
Conducto v. Judge Monzon A.M. MTJ-98-1147, July 2,1998; Golangco v.
Villanueva,
278 SCRA 414 (1997); People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 (1937).
[26]
Albert v. Court of First Instance of Manila 23 SCRA 948 (1968).
[27]
Salud v. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 384 (1994). |