SECOND DIVISION
RAYMOND MICHAEL
JACKSON,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
139255
November 24, 2003
-versus-
HON. FLORITO S.
MACALINO,
RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ,
BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION,
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
This
is a Petition
for
Certiorariunder Rule 65
of the Rules
of Court, as amended, for the reversal of the Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 267, in Special
Proceedings No. 10948 dismissing the petition for habeas corpus filed
by
the petitioner. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The Antecedents
SPO3 Rodolfo M. Villaceran
of the Philippine National Police (PNP) filed an application with the
RTC
of Angeles City, Pampanga, for the issuance of a search warrant against
petitioner Raymond M. Jackson, an American citizen, a.k.a. Allen
Miller,
and Jaime C. Bueta for the search of the articles listed therein at No.
17-21 Apple Street, Hensonville Homes, Balibago, Angeles City, and the
seizure thereof for violation of Article 176 of the Revised
Penal Code.[2]
Judge Bernardita G. Erum granted the application and issued Search
Warrant
No. 97-29 on November 29, 1997.[3]
The search was conducted on the said date; articles were seized and the
petitioner and Bueta were apprehended and detained. Among the articles
found in the possession of the petitioner was U.S. Passport No.
Z4613110
issued on June 2, 1983 by the U.S. Embassy in Manila to and in the name
of Raymond Michael Jackson, born on October 17, 1951 in South Dakota;
and
U.S. Passport No. 085238399 issued on August 15, 1996 by the New
Orleans
Passport Agency, Louisiana to and under the name of Steven Bernard
Bator,
born on August 20, 1949 in Detroit, Michigan.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Another application
for a search warrant was filed by SPO3 Pedro B. Barsana, Jr. with the
RTC
of Makati City for violation of Article 176 of the Revised
Penal Code for the search of the premises at No. 5518 Second Floor,
Macodyn Building, South Superhighway (corner Pasay Road), Makati City
under
the contract of Raymond Jackson a.k.a. Allen Miller and Bernard Bator
and
for the seizure of the articles described therein. Acting on the
application
on November 28, 1997, Judge Pedro N. Laggui of Branch 60 of the RTC
issued
Search Warrant No. 97-029.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 2, 1997,
an Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 97-2078 was filed with the
Municipal Trial Court of Angeles City against the petitioner and Bueta
for violation of Article 176 of the Revised
Penal Code.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When apprised of the
seizure of the aforementioned passports from the petitioner, U.S. Vice
Consul Raymond Greene of the United States Embassy in the Philippines
advised
the Department of Justice on December 10, 1997 that the said passports
had been cancelled.[7]
Summary deportation proceedings were initiated at the Commission of
Immigration
and Deportation (CID) against the petitioner docketed as SDO No. BOC
97-46.
On December 11, 1997, the Board of Commissioners (BOC) issued an Order
ordering the summary deportation of the petitioner to his country of
origin
and directing the Chief of Civil Security Unit to implement the order
within
three days from notice thereof, subject to compliance with the 1997
Deportation
Rules of Procedures — Office Memorandum No. ELM-97-013.[8]
In the meantime, the name of the petitioner was included in the
blacklist
of the CID.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Aside from the aforementioned
criminal cases, other criminal cases were filed against Jackson with
the
RTC as follows:
Criminal
Case No.
The Accused
In What Court Cases are Pending
1.
98-1155
Raymond Michael Jackson alias Allen
Miller
Makati RTC — Branch 133
2.
98-903
Raymond
Jackson
Makati RTC — Branch 135
3.
97-202
Raymond M. Jackson a.k.a. Allen
Miller
QC RTC — Branch 83
and Jaime Bueta
4.
98-1152
Raymond
Jackson
Makati RTC — Branch 135[10]
On December 7, 1997,
the
Quezon City RTC ordered the release of the petitioner in Criminal Case
No. 97-202 after posting a P6,000 bail.[11]
On September 18, 1998,
the Makati RTC issued an order in Criminal Case No. 98-1155 directing
the
CID to hold the departure of the petitioner from the Philippines in
view
of the pending criminal cases against him.[12]
On September 28, 1998, the Makati RTC ordered the release of the
petitioner
in Criminal Case No. 98-1152 after he posted bail in the amount of
P40,000.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 1, 1998,
the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the CID for the
reconsideration of the BOC Order dated December 11, 1997 directing his
deportation.[14]
He alleged inter alia that: (a) he was married to Lily Morales by whom
he had two children: Cristina Jackson and Judaline Jackson; (b) his
status
was converted into that of a permanent resident on September 30, 1987
under
Section 13-A of the Immigration Act, as amended with Official Passport
No. 3121487; (c) his deportation from the Philippines would deprive him
of the opportunity to defend himself in the criminal cases pending
against
him. He appended to his motion a copy of his marriage contract with
Lily
Morales and their children's birth certificates. On October 14, 1998,
the
CID issued an order denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration
for lack of merit.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner could
not be deported because he filed a petition to lift the summary order
of
deportation with the CID which as of December 15, 1998 had not yet been
resolved,[16]
pending the issuance of clearances from the NBI and PNP, travel
documents
and an airplane ticket.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 18, 1999, Tedd
Archabal, Vice Consul of the Anti-Fraud Unit in the U.S. Embassy in
Manila,
issued a certification that U.S. Passport No. Z4613110 issued to and
under
the name of "Raymond Michael Jackson" and No. 085238399 issued to
Steven
Bernard Bator had been cancelled because the persons appearing in the
photographs
affixed in the said passports did not match those appearing in the
photographs
affixed in the original applications for the issuance of the same.[17]
The CID issued Mission Order No. RBR-99-164 on May 21, 1999 for the
petitioner's
arrest for being an undesirable alien under Section 37(a), paragraph 9
of the Philippine
Immigration Act of 1940, as amended,[18]
based on the hold departure order in Criminal Case No. 98-1155 and the
certification of Vice Consul Tedd Archabal. The petitioner was arrested
by P/C Inspector James B. Mejia of the Foreign Intelligence and Liaison
Office, PNP Intelligence Group, Camp Crame, Quezon City, who turned him
over to the CID on the said date.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner filed
a petition for habeas corpus with the Court on June 28, 1999 against
the
Commissioner of the CID and John Doe and Jane Doe; and on the same
date,
the Court issued a resolution (a) directing the issuance of a writ of
habeas
corpus and the respondents to make a return of the writ on or before
July
2, 1999 at 8:30 a.m.; (b) ordering the Pasig RTC Judge to whom the case
would be raffled to conduct a hearing of the petition, to render
judgment
and to serve a copy of its decision within two days from its
promulgation.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their return filed
with the RTC on July 8, 1999, the respondents alleged inter alia that
the
petitioner was arrested and detained at the CID on the basis of the
summary
deportation order issued by the BOC on December 11, 1997 and of the
hold
departure order of the Makati RTC in Criminal Case No. 98-1155; the
petitioner's
petition for habeas corpus was premature as there was a pending
petition
to lift the summary deportation order before the BOC filed by him.[21]
On July 15, 1999, the RTC rendered a decision dismissing the petition
of
Jackson and denied his plea for a writ of habeas corpus.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner assails
the decision of the RTC and prays for the reversal thereof, contending
that:
A.
RODRIGUEZ
CANNOT ISSUE WARRANTS OF ARREST SINCE ONLY JUDGES CAN ISSUE THE SAME.
B. ASSUMING,
WITHOUT
CONCEDING, THAT RODRIGUEZ CAN ISSUE WARRANTS OF ARREST, SUCH CAN ONLY
BE
ISSUED TO ENFORCE A FINAL ORDER OF DEPORTATION; HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT
CASE, THERE IS NO FINAL ORDER OF DEPORTATION.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
C. PETITIONER'S
RIGHT
TO DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN VIOLATED.[23]
The petitioner avers
that
under Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine
Constitution, only judges are vested with authority to issue
warrants
for the arrest of persons, including aliens. Even if it is assumed that
the Commissioner of the CID is authorized to issue a warrant of arrest,
this is limited only to those cases where a final order of deportation
had already been issued by the BOC, and only for the purpose of
implementing
the said order. According to the petitioner, the order of deportation
issued
by the BOC on December 11, 1999 is illegal; hence, null and void. The
petitioner
was not apprised of any specific charges filed against him with the CID
and was not heard on the said charges as required by law before the
order
was issued. The petitioner asserts that there was no probable cause for
his arrest by the CID and that the respondents even violated the
Memorandum
Circular of the Secretary of Justice dated June 7, 1999.[24]
The petitioner cited the ruling of the Court in Lao Gi v. CA[25]
to fortify his petition. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their comment on
the petition, the respondents averred that the CID is authorized under
Section 37(a) of the Philippine
Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, to issue warrants for the
arrest
of aliens on the CID's finding of the existence of a ground for
deportation.
The petitioner cannot feign lack of due process because he filed a
motion
for the reconsideration of the December 11, 1997 Order of the BOC
ordering
his summary deportation which the BOC denied on October 14, 1998. When
Mission Order RBR-99-164 was issued on May 21, 1999 to effect the
arrest
of the petitioner, it was on the basis of a final and executory order
of
deportation. The RTC, for its part, held that (a) the petition was
premature
because the petitioner's petition with the CID to lift the summary
order
of deportation had not yet been resolved by the BOC of the CID; (b) the
petition for habeas corpus was inappropriate because the petitioner was
validly detained under a mission order issued by the Commissioner based
on the order of deportation issued by the BOC on December 11, 1997; (c)
the petitioner is estopped from assailing his arrest and detention by
the
CID.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition is dismissed.cralaw:red
Section 1, Rule 102
of the Rules of
Court,
as amended, provides that "except as otherwise expressly provided
by
law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal
confinement
or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by
which
the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled
thereto." The ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to
relieve
a person from unlawful restraint. It is essentially a writ of inquiry
and
is granted to test the right under which he is detained.[26]Section 4, Rule 102 of the said Rules provides when the writ of habeas
corpus is not allowed or discharged authorized:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec.
4.
When
writ not allowed or discharged authorized. — If it appears that the
person
alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer
under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or
order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had
jurisdiction
to issue the process, render the judgment; or make the order, the writ
shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is
allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any
informality
or defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall anything in
this
rule be held to authorize the discharge of a person charged with or
convicted
of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering imprisonment
under lawful judgment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The term "court"
includes
quasi-judicial bodies like the Deportation Board of the Bureau of
Immigration.[27]
Even if the arrest of a
person is illegal, supervening events may bar his release or discharge
from custody. What is to be inquired into is the legality of his
detention
as of, at the earliest, the filing of the application for a writ of
habeas
corpus, for even if the detention is at its inception illegal, it may,
by reason of same supervening events such as the instances mentioned in
Section 4, Rule 102, be no longer illegal at the time of the filing of
the application. Any such supervening events are the issuance of a
judicial
process preventing the discharge of the detained person.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As a general rule, the
burden of proving illegal restraint by the respondents rests on the
petitioner
who attaches such restraints. Whether the return sets forth process
where
on its face shows good ground for the detention of the petitioner, it
is
incumbent on him to allege and prove new matter that tends to
invalidate
the apparent effects of such process.[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 13 of Rule 102
of the Rules of
Court,
as amended, provides that if it appears that the detained person is
in custody under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law, the
return
shall be considered prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec.
13.
When
the return evidence, and when only a plea.- If it appears that the
prisoner
is in custody under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law, the
return
shall be considered prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint; but
if he is restrained of his liberty by any alleged private authority,
the
return shall be considered only as a plea of the facts therein set
forth,
and the party claiming the custody must prove such facts.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, based on
the return of the writ by the respondents, the petitioner was arrested
and detained at the CID detention center at Bicutan, Parañaque
City,
under Mission Order No. RBR-99-164 dated May 21, 1999 based on the
Order
of the BOC dated December 11, 1997 which had become final and
executory.
The BOC found, after due proceedings, that: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Records
show
that on 10 December 1997, Vice Consul Raymond Greene of the U.S.
Embassy
in Manila advised the Department of Justice that the U.S. passports
which
were confiscated from the abovenamed respondent when he was arrested by
PNP operatives in Angeles City on 30 November 1997 and purportedly
issued
to Raymond Michael Jackson and Steven Bernard Bator have been
determined
to have been tampered. As a consequence, said passports were cancelled
by the U.S. Embassy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Schonemann vs.
Commissioner
Santiago, et al., (G.R. No. 86461, 30 May 1989), the Supreme Court
ruled
that if a foreign embassy cancels the passport of an alien, or does not
reissue a valid passport to him, the alien loses the privilege to
remain
in the country.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view
of
the foregoing, the Board of Commissioners hereby orders the summary
deportation
of NORMAN LLOYD @ RAYMOND MICHAEL JACKSON @ STEVEN BERNARD BATOR to his
country of origin subject to compliance with the 1997 Deportation Rules
of Procedures-Office Memorandum Order No. ELM-97-013.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Chief of the Civil
Security Unit is hereby ordered to implement this Order within three
(03)
days from receipt hereof.
Include respondent's
name on the Blacklist.cralaw:red
Give respondent a copy
hereof.[30]
The information relayed
by U.S. Vice Consul Raymond Greene to the DOJ on December 10, 1997 was
reiterated by U.S. Vice Consul Tedd Archabal in his certification
forwarded
to the DOJ on May 18, 1999, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CERTIFICATION
I, Tedd Archabal,
Vice
Consul of the United States hereby certify that United States Passport
Number Z4613110 issued June 2, 1983 at the U.S. Embassy, Manila in the
name of RAYMOND MICHAEL JACKSON, born October 17, 1951 at South Dakota
is a genuine United States Government document that has been altered
and
photosubstituted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I also certify
that
United States Passport Number 085238399 issued August 15, 1996 at the
New
Orleans Passport Agency, Louisiana, in the name of STEVEN BERNARD
BATOR,
born August 20, 1949 at Detroit, Michigan, is a genuine United States
Government
document that has been altered and photosubstituted, as well.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I further certify
that
a comparison of photographs affixed to U.S. Passports Number Z4613110
and
085238399 — which were seized by Philippine National Police officers on
or about November 29, 1997 from a man claiming to be Raymond Michael
Jackson
— and photographs affixed to the original applications for passports
number
Z4613110 and 085238399 in the names of Raymond Michael Jackson and
Steven
Bernard Bator on file with the U.S. Department of State, Washington,
DC,
revealed that these are not/not the same people.[31]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner's arrest
and detention are in accord with Section 45(d) in relation to Section
37(a)(9)
of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 which respectively reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SEC.
45.
(d)
being an alien, enters the Philippines without inspection and admission
by the immigration officials, or obtains entry into the Philippines by
willful, false, or misleading representation or willful concealment of
a material fact;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
SEC. 37. (a) The
following
aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of
Immigration
or of any other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported
upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a
determination
by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for
deportation
as charged against the alien: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
(9) Any alien
who commits
any of the acts described in Sections Forty-five and Forty-six of this
Act, independent of criminal action which may be brought against
him:
x x x. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Tung Chin Hui v.
Rodriguez,[32]
this Court held that such documents from a foreign embassy attesting to
the cancellation of the passports held by their national on the ground
that the said passports were tampered with; hence, cancelled were
sufficient
grounds for the arrest and deportation of aliens from the Philippines:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The
above-quoted
official letters demonstrate the speciousness of the petitioner's
contention
that his passport could not have been cancelled in 1995, inasmuch as he
was allowed to enter the country as late as 1998. The letters show that
the Philippine government was informed about the cancellation only in
1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, the
foregoing
letters of the official representative of the Taiwanese government
belie
the petitioner's submission that there was no evidence to prove the
findings
of the CA and the Board of Commissioners. Verily, these documents
constitute
sufficient justification for his deportation. As the Court held in the
landmark case Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, "the mere fact that a citizen or
subject is out of the territory of his country does not relieve him
from
that allegiance which he owes to his government, and his government
may,
under certain conditions, properly and legally request his return."[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner cannot
feign
ignorance of the charges against him in the CID and insist on being
deprived
by the BOC of his right to due process as prescribed for in Section
37(c)
of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c)
No
alien
shall be deported without being informed of the specific grounds for
deportation
nor without being given a hearing under rules of procedure to be
prescribed
by the Commissioner of Immigration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is so because on
October
1, 1998, the petitioner filed a motion with the CID for the
reconsideration
of the December 11, 1997 Order of the BOC. The petitioner did not
allege
therein that he was not informed of the charges against him. In fact,
the
petitioner did not even rebut the claim of the U.S. Vice Consul that
the
passport he was carrying was tampered and had been already cancelled.
Neither
did he allege that he requested for the reinstatement of his passport
with
the United States Embassy. Despite the finality of the deportation
order
of the BOC, it still entertained the petitioner's motion for
reconsideration
but denied the same on its findings that there were inconsistencies in
his sworn statement and the documents he presented in support of his
motion,
thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
After
going
over the motion, we find no valid reason to disturb the order of 12
(sic)
December 1997. Likewise, the same had long become final and executory.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, the
grounds
alleged in the motion have no merit and are irrelevant. The alleged
marriage
of respondent to a Filipina, a certain Lily Morales, with whom
respondent
allegedly begot two (2) children named Cristina and Judaline both
surnamed
Jackson, and the supposed conversion of respondent's status to
permanent
resident on 30 September 1987 under Section 13(a) of the Immigration
Act
(CA No. 613, as amended), does not change the fact that the two (2) US
passports purportedly issued to Raymond Michael Jackson and Steven
Bernard
Bator which were used by respondent, were tampered and subsequently
cancelled
by the U.S. Embassy. Respondent already lost the privilege to remain in
the country (Schonemann v. Comm. Santiago, G.R. No. 86461, 30 May
1989).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is also significant
to note the evident inconsistencies in the sworn statement of
respondent
conducted by Special Prosecutor Henry B. Tubban on 5 December 1997 with
the documents attached in the motion. Hereunder are the said
inconsistencies: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1.
Annex
"A"
of the Motion is an alleged Marriage Contract between the respondent
and
one Lily H. Morales showing Manila City Hall as the place of marriage
and
which was held on 6 September 1984.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the Sworn
Statement,
the respondent claimed to have entered the country for the first time
only
in 1988 (p. 1 of sworn statement), that he married a certain Lily
Morales
sometime in 1989 in Angeles City (p. 2 of sworn statement).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The motion
stated
that out of the union of the respondent with Ms. Morales, two (2)
children
named Cristina and Judaline both surnamed Jackson, were born. In the
sworn
statement of the respondent, he stated that they have five (5)
children.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In addition, in
the
marriage contract (Annex "A" of motion), it was stated that Ms. Morales
is 17 years of age, a minor. However, below the personal circumstances
of the respondent and Mrs. Morales is a statement in bold letters that
"BOTH PARTIES ARE OF LEGAL AGES."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The foregoing
creates
a serious doubt on the allegations in the motion and on the
authenticity
of the documents attached thereto. With more reason that the motion
should
be denied.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the
petitioner,
in his motion for reconsideration with the CID, offered to post a bail
bond for his provisional release to enable him to secure the necessary
documents to establish the appropriate grounds for his permanent stay
in
the Philippines. By offering to post a bail bond, the petitioner
thereby
admitted that he was under the custody of the CID and voluntarily
accepted
the jurisdiction of the CID.[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The present as clearly
as the petitioner's petition to lift the order of deportation was as
yet
unresolved by the BOC when he filed the petition for habeas corpus.cralaw:red
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision of the RTC in
Special
Proceedings No. 10948 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Florito S. Macalino.
[2]
Records, p. 164.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 177.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Records, pp. 37–38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Records, pp. 43–44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, p. 187.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id at 152–156.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Records, p. 154.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 55.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 36.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Rollo, pp. 188–190.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id. at 191–192.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id. at 81.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id. at 186.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Records, p. 180.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Rollo, p. 80.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id. at 172–174.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id. at 99–102.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Rollo, p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id. at 162.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
180 SCRA 756 (1989).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Velasco v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 677 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Rodriguez v. Bonifacio, 344 SCRA 519 (2000); Velasco v. Court of
Appeals,
supra.
[28]
Velasco v. Court of Appeals, supra at 685.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Feria v. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 525 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Rollo, p. 187.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Id. at 186.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
356 SCRA 31 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Id. at 42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Rollo, pp. 191–192.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Velasco v. Court of Appeals, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|