Saberon v. Atty. Larong A.C. No. 6567, April April 16, 2008
FACTS: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Respondent espondent Atty Atty. Fernando ernando Larong Larong was charged charged of grave grave miscondu misconduct ct for allegedly using abusive and oensive language in his pleadings led before the Bangko entral ng !ilipinas "B!#. Atty. Larong Larong was the in-house counsel and corporate secretary of the urigaonon Rural Banking $orporation. %&%R'()*+, B%,A+ when complainant -ose Saberon fled beore the BS a petition petition against against the Ban! and Alredo Alredo Bonpin for the cancellation of banks registration and franchise/ alleging0 o the Ban! Ban! reuse reused d to retur return n variou various s chec chec!s !s and land land title titles" s" #hic hich #ere give iven as securi curitty or the loan oan obta obtaiined ned by Saberon$s #ie" despite ull pay%ent of the loan and interest. Bonpin s a%ily co%prised the %a&ority stoc!holders stoc!holders of the bank o o Bonpin #as a oreign citi'en Atty. Larong/ in behalf of the Bank/ led an Answer with A1rmative 2efenses that contained the controversial controversial statement which read0 o (hat this is another in the series o blac!%ail suits led by plainti plainti 3herein 3herein complainant complainant -ose $. aberon aberon44 and his wife to coerce the Ban! and and 5r. Bonpin or fnancial gain. aberon found the said statement to be totally malicious and baseless. )e added that by such statement/ Atty. Atty. Larong aided in the in6iction of damages agains againstt aber aberon ons s family family who were depriv deprived ed of the use use of the mortga mortgage ge property. *B! $ommisioner 2ennis Funa reco%%ended that Atty. Larong be held liable for gross %isconduct and be suspended or () days. the the #o #ord rd *bla *blac! c!%a %ail il+ + conn connot otes es so so%e %eth thin ing g sinis iniste ter r and and o cri%inal. o ,/.), of the Atty Atty.. Larong Larong violat violated ed Canon , and ule ,/.), the $ode $ode of !rofessional Responsibility "$!R#/ which provided that a lawyer must only present factual arguments and anchor his case on legal merits o Atty. Larong went overboard when he used such 012S 3445C5SSA6 A42 75L58A4T 75L5 8A4T to the case. )owever/ )owever/ the the 7B Board o 9overnors disproved his reco%%endation and and dism dismis isse sed d the the case case for for lack lack of meri merit. t. )owe )oweve ver/ r/ the the *B! *B! Boar Board d of ,overnors Resolution did not state the facts and arguments on which their dismissal was based. )ence/ aberon led the instant appeal and contended that the Resolution was void ab initio for violating violating ec. 78"a#/ Rule 79:;B/ 79:;B/ re
•
•
decision must clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. aberon also asked that the penalty be modied into disbar%ent . 7n his Co%%ent" Atty. Larong clai%ed that the purportedly oensive allegation was a statement of fact which he had backed up with a narration of chronological events= hence/ must be treated as ABS1L3T5L6 787L5952 like allegations made in any initiatory pleadings. +evertheless/ Atty. Larong asked for aberons and the courts CL554C6 / pleading that he was then only two years in the profession but without any intention of causing dishonor to it.
7SS35: >hether or not Atty. Larong is guilty of gross misconduct? SUB-ISSUE : >hether or not Atty. Larongs purportedly oensive allegation is absolutely privileged?
1T;5 7SS35S: >hether or not the penalty of disbarment is proper? >hether or not the *B! Board of ,overnors Resolution is void?
3L749: 41" Atty. Larong is 41T guilty of gross misconduct B3T 14L6 S7L5 7SC1423CT for violating CA414S < and ,, and the rules thereof/ vi@ : $A++ ; A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy" airness and candor toward his professional colleagues/ and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Rule .C7 ; A lawyer shall not/ in his professional dealings/ use language #hich is abusive" o=ensive or other#ise i%proper . $A++ 77 ; A lawyer shall observe and %aintain the respect due to the courts and to Dudicial o1cers and should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 77.C9 ; A lawyer shall abstain ro% scandalous" o=ensive or %enacing language or behavior before the $ourts. Lawyers/ although they are allowed a latitude of pertinent remark to further the cause of their clients/ should not trench beyond the bounds of 5L58A4C6 A42 175T6 in making such remark or comment.
Etterances made in the course of Dudicial proceedings/ ;10585 FALS5 or AL7C713S / are considered ABS1L3T5L6 787L5952 provided that they are 5T7454T A42 5L58A4T to the sub&ect o in>uiry. >hat is the T5ST 1F 5L58A4C6 ? (he utterance be L597T7AT5L6 5LAT52 thereto such that it A6 B5C15 T;5 S3B?5CT 1F 74@376 in the course of the trial. )ere/ the $ourt found that the utterance of blackmail in the Answer and ReDoinder which Atty. Larong led is 41T L597T7AT5L6 5LAT52 1 5T7454T to the sub&ect %atters of in
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION A.C. No. 6567
April 16, 2008
JOSE C. SABERON, complainant, vs. ATT. !ERNANDO T. "ARON#, respondent. DECISION CARPIO MORA"ES, J.$ In a Complaint1 filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant, this Court, complainant Jose C. Saberon complainant! char"ed #tt$. %ernando &. 'aron" respondent! of %r&'( )i*+o-+/ or
&ll(%(-l *i% &*i'( &- o(*i'( l&%&%( i pl(&-i%* il(- (or( /3( Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas 4BSP. &he antecedent facts of the case are as follo(s)
Co)pl&i&/ il(- (or( /3( BSP & P(/i/io 2 &%&i*/ Sri%&oo Rr&l B&i% Corpor&/io the ban*! and #lfredo &an Bonpin Bonpin!, (hose famil$ comprises the ma+orit$ stoc*holders of the ban*, for
+&+(ll&/io o /3( &* r(%i*/r&/io &-
r&+3i*(. &he Petition, he said, arose from the &* &-or Bopi* r(*&l /o r(/r '&rio* +3(+* &- l&- /i/l(*, 93i+3 9(r( %i'( /o *(+r( & lo& o/&i( 3i* 4+o)pl&i&/* 9i(, -(*pi/( &ll(%(- ll p&)(/ o /3( lo& &- i/(r(*/* .
R(*po-(/, i:3o*( +o*(l &- &+/i% +orpor&/( *(+r(/&r o /3( &, il(- an #ns(er (ith #ffirmative efenses to the Petition statin", inter alia, -
i /3( *(ri(* o l&+)&il *i/* il(- pl&i/i /herein complainant Jose C. Saberon0 and his (ife /o +o(r+( the Ban* and Mr. Bonpin for i&+i&l %&i . &hat this is another
2 2 2 2.3 4mphasis and underscorin" supplied! Respondent made statements of the same tenor in his Re+oinder to complainant5s Repl$.
!i-i% /3( &or()(/io(- */&/()(/* /o ( ;/o/&ll )&li+io*, 'i*+o* <*i+= &- (r(/ o & &+/&l or l(%&l &*i*,; +o)pl&i&/ il(- /3( pr(*(/ +o)pl&i/ .
Complainant contends that he filed the Petition b efore the BSP in the le"itimate e2ercise of his constitutional ri"ht to see* redress of his "rievances6 and that respondent, as in7house counsel and actin" corporate secretar$ of the ban*, (as full$ a(are that the loan obtained b$ his complainant5s! (ife in behalf of 8her children8 had been paid in full, hence, there (as no more reason to continue holdin" the collaterals.
Co)pl&i&/ &--* /3&/ r(*po-(/ &i-(- &- &(//(- /3( ili+/io o -&)&%(* po 3i* 9i( &- ;3(r +3il-r(; 93o 9(r( /3* -(pri'(- o /3( *( o /3( )or/%&%(- prop(r/.
r(*po-(/ &r%(* /3&/$ 41 /3(r( 9&* ;o/3i% &*i'(, o(*i'( or o/3(r9i*( i)prop(r; i /3( 9& 3( *(- /3( 9or- ;l&+)&il; /o +3&r&+/(ri>( /3( *i/ &%&i*/ 3i* +li(/*? &- 42 93( & l&9(r il(* & r(*po*i'( pl(&-i%, 3( i* o/ i & 9& &i-i% or &(//i% /3( ili+/io o -&)&%(* po /3( o/3(r p&r/. In his Comment9 to the present complaint a"ainst him,
B$ Resolution of March 19, :;;, < the Court referred the case to the Inte"rated Bar of the Philippines for investi"ation, report and recommendation. In his Report and Recommendation dated June :1, :;;9, = IBP
I'(*/i%&/i% Co))i**io(r D(i* A. B. !& 3(l- /3&/ /3( 9or- ;l&+)&il; +oo/(* *o)(/3i% *ii*/(r &- +ri)i&l . >nless the person accused thereof is criminall$ char"ed (ith e2tortion, he added, it (ould be imprudent, if not offensive, to characteri?e that person5s act as blac*mail. Commissioner !&
*/r(**(- /3&/ & +o*(l i* (@p(+/(- ol /o pr(*(/ &+/&l &r%)(/* &- /o &+3or 3i* +&*( o /3( l(%&l )(ri/* of his client5s claim or defense in line (ith his dut$ under Rl( 1.01 o /3( Co-( o Pro(**io&l R(*po*iili/, as follo(s) # la($er shall emplo$ onl$ fair and honest means to attain the la(ful ob+ectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presentin" or threaten to present unfounded criminal char"es to obtain an improper advanta"e in an$ case or proceedin".
r(*po-(/ *3ol- o/ */&/( 3i* p(r*o&l (li( &* /o /3( *o-(** or */i+( o 3i* +&*( pr*&/ /o C&o 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibilit$. Moreover, he noted that in espousin" a client5s cause, @
&he Investi"atin" Commissioner also opined that b$ *i% 9or-* /3&/ 9(r( ;(+(**&r
&- irr(l('&/ /o /3( +&*(,; r(*po-(/ 9(/ ;o'(ro&r- &- +ro**(- /3( li(; o pro(**io&l +o-+/. In vie( thereof, he r(+o))(-(- /3&/ r(*po-(/ (
o- +lp&l( o %ro** )i*+o-+/ &- **p(-(- ro) /3( pr&+/i+( o l&9 or 0 -&*.
B$ Resolution Ao. II7:;;<7;-9 of Januar$ 1=, :;;<, 1; the IBP
Bo&r- o #o'(ror* -i*&ppro'(- /3( r(+o))(-&/io &- i*/(&- -i*)i**(- /3( +&*( for lac* of merit. &he Commission on Bar iscipline, b$ letter of March :9, :;;<, transmitted the records of the case to this Court.11
Co)pl&i&/ &pp(&l(- /3( R(*ol/io o /3( IBP Bo&r- o #o'(ror* /o /3i* Cor/ via a petition filed on March <, :;;<, under Section 1: c! of Rule 1-@7B 1: of the Revised Rules of Court. Complainant challen"es the IBP Board of Dovernor5s Resolution as ille"al and void ab initio for violatin" the mandator$ reEuirements of Section 1:a! of Rule 1-@7B of the Revised Rules of Court that the same be 8reduced to (ritin", clearl$ and distinctl$ statin" the facts and the reasons on (hich it is based.8 %indin" the rulin" of the Investi"atin" Commissioner that respondent is "uilt$ of "rave misconduct to be in accordance (ith the evidence, +o)pl&i&/ ('(r/3(l(** *)i/* /3&/ /3( r(+o))(-(- p(&l/ o **p(*io *3ol- ( )o-ii(- /o -i*&r)(/ . &he offense committed b$ respondent, he posits, manifests an evil motive and is therefore an infraction involvin" moral turpitude. In his Comment to /the0 Petition for Revie(, r(*po-(/ */&/(* /3&/ /3( &-)ii*/r&/i'(
+o)pl&i/ &%&i*/ 3i) i* & 3&r&**)(/ *i/ %i'( /3&/ i/ 9&* i 3i* +&p&+i/ &* +o*(l for the ban* and Bonpin that he filed the #ns(er ob+ected to b$ complainant. Moreover, r(*po-(/ +l&i)* /3&/ /3( prpor/(-l o(*i'( &ll(%&/io 9&* &
*/&/()(/ o &+/ 93i+3 3( 3&- &+(- p 9i/3 & &rr&/io o /3( +3roolo%i+&l i+i-(/* &- *i/* il(- b$ complainant and his (ife a"ainst his clients. &hat bein" the case, he contends that the alle"ation made in the #ns(er )*/ ( +o*i-(r(- &*ol/(l pri'il(%(- */ li( &ll(%&/io* )&-( i & +o)pl&i/ or ii/i&/or pl(&-i% . Respondent in fact counters that it 9&* +o)pl&i&/ 3i)*(l 93o 3&- )&-( *(rio*
i)p/&/io* o 9ro%-oi% &%&i*/ 3i* +li(/* /3( & or &ll(%(-l (i% (%&%(- i *o)( ill(%&l &+/i'i/i(*, &- Bopi or )i*r(pr(*(/i% 3i)*(l &* & !ilipio. Aonetheless, respondent pleads that &/ /3( /i)( /3( &ll(%(-l &*i'( &- o(*i'(
l&%&%( 9&* *(-, 3( 9&* ol /9o (&r* i/o /3( pro(**io, 9i/3 &r & i/(/io o ri%i% -i*3oor /o i/. Fe admits that because of some infelicities of lan"ua"e, he ma$ have stirred up complainant5s indi "nation for (hich he as*ed the l atter5s and this Court5s clemenc$. In his Repl$,1- complainant counters that respondent5s Comment reveals the latter5s propensit$ to deliberatel$ state a falsehood6 and that respondent5s claim that the administrative complaint (as a 8harassin" act,8 deducible from the 8fact that /it0 post7dates a series of suits, none of (hich has prospered 2 2 2 a"ainst the same rural ban* and its o(ner,8 is bereft of factual basis.
Complainant "oes on to ar"ue that respondent, as counsel for Bonpin, *ne( of the t(o criminal cases he and his (ife had filed a"ainst Bonpin and, as admitted b$ respondent, of the criminal char"es a"ainst him for libel arisin" from his imputations of blac*mail, e2tortion or robber$ a"ainst him and his (ife. %inall$, complainant refuses to accede to respondent5s entreat$ for clemenc$. &his Cor/
i-* r(*po-(/ %il/ o *i)pl( )i*+o-+/ or *i% i/()p(r&/( l&%&%( i 3i* pl(&-i%*. &he Code of Professional Responsibilit$ mandates) C#AOA = 7 # la($er shall conduct himself (ith courtes$, fairness and candor to(ard his professional collea"ues, and shall avoid harassin" tactics a"ainst opposin" counsel. Rule =.;1 7 # la($er shall not, in his professional dealin"s, use lan"ua"e (hich is abusive, offensive or other(ise improper. C#AOA 11 7 # la($er shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to +udicial officers and should insist on similar conduct b$ others. Rule 11.;- 7 # la($er shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacin" lan"ua"e or behavior before the Courts. &o be sure, the adversarial nature of our le"al s$stem has tempted members of the bar to use stron" lan"ua"e in pursuit of their dut$ to advance the interests of their clients. 13
o9('(r, 93il( & l&9(r i* (/i/l(- /o pr(*(/ 3i* +&*( 9i/3 'i%or &+or&%(, *+3 (/3*i&*) -o(* o/ */i /3( *( o o(*i'( &&*i'( l&%&%(.15 "&%&%( &o-* 9i/3 +o/l(** po**iili/i(* or o( /o ( ()p3&/i+ / r(*p(+/l, +o'i+i% / o/ -(ro%&/or, ill)i&/i% / o/ o(*i'(. 19
On man$ occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personalit$ and to advance no fact pre+udicial to the honor or reputation of a part$ or (itness, unless reEuired b$ the +ustice of the cause (ith (hich he is char"ed. 1< In *eepin" (ith the di"nit$ of the le"al profession, a la($er5s lan"ua"e even in his pleadin"s must be di"nified. 1= It is of no conseEuence that the alle"edl$ malicious statements of respondent (ere made not b efore a court but before the BSP. A *i)il&r *)i**io /3&/ &+/&/io* o &- */&/()(/*
)&-( l&9(r* (or( /3( N&/io&l "&or R(l&/io* Co))i**io 4N"RC &r( o/ +o'(r(- /3( Co-( o Pro(**io&l R(*po*iili/, /3( N"RC o/ (i% & +or/, 9&* */r+ -o9 i Lubiano v. Gordolla ,1@ thus) Respondent became unmindful of the fact that in addressin" the Aational 'abor Relations Commission, 3( o(/3(l(** r()&i(- & )()(r o /3( B&r , an oath7bound servant of the la(, (hose first dut$ is not to his client but to the administration of +ustice and (hose conduct ou"ht to be and must be scrupulousl$ observant of la( and ethics. :;
&he observation applies (ith eEual force to the case at bar. Respectin" respondent5s ar"ument that the matters stated in the #ns(er he filed before the BSP
l&9(r*, /3o%3 /3( &r( &llo9(- & l&/i/-( o p(r/i(/ r()&r or +o))(/ i /3( r/3(r&+( o /3( +&*(* /3( p3ol- &- or /3( (li+i/ o /3(ir +li(/*, *3ol- o/ /r(+3 (o- /3( o-* o RE"EVANC AND PROPRIET i )&i% *+3 r()&r or +o))(/. (ere privile"ed, it suffices to stress that
:1
&rue, utterances, petitions and motions made in the course of +udicial proceedin"s have consistentl$ been +o*i-(r(-
&* &*ol/(l pri'il(%(-, 3o9('(r &l*( or )&li+io* /3( )& (, / ol or *o lo% &* /3( &r( p(r/i(/ &- r(l('&/ /o /3( *(+/ o iFir . &he test of relevanc$ has been stated, thus) ::
A* /o /3( -(%r(( o r(l('&+ or p(r/i(+ NECESSAR TO MAGE A""E#ED DE!AMATOR MATTERS pri'il(%(- /3( +or/* &'or & li(r&l rl( . &he matter to (hich the privile"e does not e2tend must be so 2 2 2.
palpabl$ (antin" in relation to the sub+ect matter of the controvers$ that no reasonable man can doubt its relevanc$ and i mpropriet$. In order that matter alle"ed in a pleadin" ma$ be privile"ed, it need not be in ever$ case material to the issues presented b$ the pleadin"s .
I/ )*/, 3o9('(r, ( l(%i/i)&/(l r(l&/(- /3(r(/o, or *o p(r/i(/ /o /3( *(+/ o /3( +o/ro'(r* /3&/ i/ )& (+o)( /3( *(+/ o iFir i /3( +or*( o /3( /ri&l 2 2 2. :-
Drantin" that the proceedin"s before the BSP parta*e of the nature of +udicial proceedin"s, the
&*+rip/io o l&+)&il i /3( A*9(r &- R(oi-(r il(- r(*po-(/ i* NOT "E#ITIMATE" RE"ATED OR PERTINENT /o /3( *(+/ )&//(r* o iFir (or( /3( BSP, 93i+3 9(r( Bopi* &ll(%(- &li( +i/i>(*3ip &- )&ori/ */o+3ol-i% i /3( & . &hose issues (ere ampl$ discussed in the #ns(er (ith #ffirmative efenses (ithout need of the further
;&o/3(r i & *(ri(* o l&+)&il *i/* . . . /o +o(r+( /3( B& &- Mr. Bopi or i&+i&l %&i.; Fence, alle"ation that the Petition (as
such alle"ation (as unnecessar$ and uncalled for. More so, considerin" that complainant and his (ife (ere (ell (ithin their ri"hts to file the cases a"ainst the ban* andGor Bonpin to protect their interests and see* redress of their "rievances. Respectin" the assailed Resolution of the IBP Board of D overnors, indeed onl$ a 8Aotice of Resolution8 (as transmitted to this Court, to"ether (ith the Records of the case, (hich Aotice simpl$ stated that on Januar$ 1=, :;;<, the IBP Board of Dovernors passed Resolution Ao. II7:;;<7;-9 in (hich it) R4SO'4 to #M4A, as it is hereb$ #M4A4, the Recommendation of the Investi"atin" Commissioner, and to #PPRO4 the ISMISS#' of the above7entitled case for lac* of merit.
>pon such Aotice, it is evident that there is no compliance (ith the procedural reEuirement that the
IBP Bo&r- o #o'(ror* -(+i*io *3&ll */&/( +l(&rl &- -i*/i+/l /3( i-i%* o &+/* or l&9 o 93i+3 /3( *&)( i* &*(- . &hus Section 1: of Rule 1-@7B of the Rules of Court provides) S4C. 1:. Revie( and decision b$ the Board of Dovernors. 7 a! 4ver$ case heard b$ an investi"ator shall be revie(ed b$ the IBP Board of Dovernors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it b$ the Investi"ator (ith his report. T3( -(+i*io o /3( Bo&r- po *+3 r('i(9 *3&ll ( i 9ri/i% &- *3&ll +l(&rl &- -i*/i+/l */&/( /3( &+/* &- /3( r(&*o* o 93i+3 i/ i* &*(-. It shall be promul"ated (ithin a period not e2ceedin" thirt$ -;! da$s from the ne2t meetin" of the Board follo(in" the submittal of the Investi"ator5s report. 4mphasis and underscorin" supplied! &he above reEuirement serves a ver$ important function not +ust to inform the parties of the reason for the decision as (ould enable them on appeal to point out and ob+ect to the findin"s (ith (hich the$ are not in a"reement, but also to assure the parties that the Board of Dovernors has reached the +ud"ment throu"h the process of le"al reasonin". :3 Hith re"ard to complainant5s plea that respondent be disbarred, this Court has consistentl$ considered -i*&r)(/
&- **p(*io o & &//or( &* /3( )o*/ *('(r( or)* o -i*+ipli&r &+/io, 93i+3 *3ol- ( i)po*(- 9i/3 %r(&/ +&/io. &he$ should be meted out onl $ for dul$ proven serious administrative char"es. :
&hus, (hile respondent is "uilt$ of usin" infelicitous lan"ua"e, such trans"ression is not of a "rievous character as to merit respondent5s disbarment. I li%3/ o r(*po-(/* &polo%i(*,
/3( Cor/ i-* i/ (*/ /o /()p(r /3( p(&l/ or 3i* ir&+/io 93i+3, -(r /3( +ir+)*/&+(*, i* +o*i-(r(- *i)pl(, r&/3(r /3& %r&'(, )i*+o-+/ . HERE!ORE, complainant5s petition is partl$ #RANTED. Respondent, #tt$. %ernando &. 'aron", is found "uilt$ of SIMP"E MISCONDUCT for usin" intemperate lan"ua"e. Fe is !INED P:,;;; (ith a stern HARNIN# that a repetition of this or similar act (ill be dealt (ith more severel$. 'et a cop$ of this ecision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of respondent. SO ORDERED. Quisumbing,Chairperson Tinga, Velasco, Jr., Brion, JJ., concur.
!oo/o/(* Rollo, pp. 17. %iled before the Office of the Bar Confidant on September ::, :;;3.
1
Id. at 9711.
:
Id. at 1:71@.
-
Id. at 1-6 p. : of the #ns(er.
3
Id. at :97-. enominated as 8&raverse to Repl$,8 the re+oinder stated on para"raph 3, as follo(s)
3. Most notabl$, after Respondents revealed that the instant Petition is a mere ruse emplo$ed b$ Petitioner to blac*mail the former for financial "ain and after ample sho(in" that this action is baseless and fruitless, petitioner, findin" his foot in his mouth, no( chan"es "ear and "oes amuc* b$ raisin" ne( matters purel$ e2traneous to his ori"inal cause of action 2 2 2. 4mphasis supplied! Id. at 3;73<. %iled before the OBC on %ebruar$ 1, :;;.
9
Id. at 1@:.
<
Id. at 1=<71@;.
=
Canon 17 # la($er shall observe candor, fairness and lo$alt$ in all his dealin"s and transactions (ith his clients. @
1;
11
1:
Rollo, p. 1=9. Id. at 1=. Section :c! of Rule 1-@7B of the Revised Rules of Court, provides) c! If the respondent is e2onerated b$ the Board or the disciplinar$ sanction imposed b$ it is less than suspension or disbarment such as admonition, reprimand or fine! it shall issue a decision e2oneratin" respondent or imposin" such sanction. &he case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested part$ filed (ith the Supreme Court (ithin 1! da$s from notice of the Board5s resolution, the Supreme Court orders other(ise.
1-
Rollo, pp. :3-7:3@.
13
Do v. Court of #ppeals, D.R. Ao. 1;9;=<, #pril <, 1@@-, ::1 SCR# -@<, 3:;.
1
Rubio v. Court of #ppeals, D.R. Ao. =3;-:, #u"ust :@, 1@=@, 1<< SCR# 9;, 9-.
&orres v. Javier, #.C. Ao. @1;, September :1, :;;, 3<; SCR# 3;=, 3:16 Aue? v. #stor"a, #.C. Ao. 91-1, %ebruar$ :=, :;;, 3: SCR# --, -93, citin" Fue$su(an7%lorido v. #tt$. %lorido, 39 Phil. 1, < :;;3!6 Cru? v. Cabrera, #.C. Ao. <-<, October :, :;;3, 331 SCR# :11, :1@. 19
Section :;f! of Rule 1-= of the Rules of Court. ide >$ v. #tt$. epasucat, 3 Phil. 1, :1 :;;-!. 1<
1=
1@
A" v. #lar, #.C. Ao. <::, Aovember ::, :;;9, ;< SCR# 39, 3<-6 &orres v. Javier, supra. #.C. Ao. :-3-, Jul$ -;, 1@=:, 11 SCR# 3@, 39:.
Supra, citin" Suri"ao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, D.R. Ao. '7:<;<:, Januar$ @, 1@<;, -1 SCR# 1, 1<. :;
:1
>$ v. #tt$. epasucat, supra note 1< at 1@.
&orres v. #tt$. Javier, supra note19 at 31=6 illalon v. Buendia, -1 Phil. 99-, 99< 1@@!6 Dutierre? v. #bila et al., 1@< Phil. 919, 9:1 1@=:!. ::
>$ v. #tt$. epasucat, supra note :1. ide #lcantara v. Ponce, D.R. Ao. 191=-, %ebruar$ :=, :;;<, 1< SCR# <3, =-6 &olentino v. Ba$losis, 11; Phil. 1;1;, 1 ;1- 1@91!. :-
&eodosio v. Aava, #.C. Ao. 39<-, #pril :<, :;;1, -< SCR# 3;9, 31:, cited in Cru? v. Cabrera, supra note 19 at :197:1<. :3
:
Aue? v. #stor"a, supra note 19 at -3.
