FIRST DIVISION
|
FILIPINAS PORT SERVICES, INC., represented by stockholders, ELIODORO
C. CRUZ and MINDANAO TERMINAL AND BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC., Petitioners, -
versus - VICTORIANO S. GO, ARSENIO
LOPEZ CHUA, EDGAR C. TRINIDAD,
HERMENEGILDO M. TRINIDAD, JESUS SYBICO, MARY JEAN D. CO, HENRY CHUA, JOSELITO
S. JAYME, ERNESTO S. JAYME, and ELIEZER B. DE JESUS, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 161886
Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA,
and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: March
16, 2007 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Assailed and sought
to be set aside in
this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision[1] dated 19 January 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 73827, reversing an earlier decision of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City and accordingly dismissing the derivative suit
instituted by petitioner Eliodoro C. Cruz for and in behalf of the stockholders
of co-petitioner Filipinas Port Services, Inc. (Filport, hereafter).
The case is actually an intra-corporate dispute
involving Filport, a domestic corporation engaged in stevedoring services with
principal office in
The relevant facts:
On 4 September 1992, petitioner Eliodoro C.
Cruz, Filport’s president from 1968 until he lost his bid for reelection as
Filport’s president during the general stockholders’ meeting in 1991, wrote a
letter[2] to the corporation’s
Board of Directors questioning the board’s creation of the following positions
with a monthly remuneration of P13,050.00 each, and the election thereto
of certain members of the board, to wit:
Asst. Vice-President for
Corporate Planning - Edgar C. Trinidad (Director)
Asst. Vice-President for
Operations - Eliezer
B. de Jesus (Director)
Asst. Vice-President for
Finance - Mary
Jean D. Co (Director)
Asst. Vice-President for
Administration - Henry Chua (Director)
Special Asst. to the
Chairman - Arsenio
Lopez Chua (Director)
Special Asst. to the
President -
Fortunato V. de Castro
In his aforesaid letter, Cruz requested the board
to take necessary action/actions to recover from those elected to the aforementioned
positions the salaries they have received.
On
On 14 June 1993, Cruz, purportedly in
representation of Filport and its stockholders, among which is herein co-petitioner
Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Services, Inc. (Minterbro), filed with the SEC a
petition[3]
which he describes as a derivative suit against
the herein respondents who were then the
incumbent members of Filport’s Board of
Directors, for alleged acts of mismanagement detrimental to the interest of the
corporation and its shareholders at large, namely:
1. creation of an executive committee in
1991 composed of seven (7) members of the board with compensation of P500.00
for each member per meeting, an office which, to Cruz, is not provided for in
the by-laws of the corporation and whose function merely duplicates those of
the President and General Manager;
2. increase in the emoluments of the
Chairman, Vice-President, Treasurer and Assistant General Manager which
increases are greatly disproportionate to the volume and character of the work
of the directors holding said positions;
3. re-creation of the positions of
Assistant Vice-Presidents (AVPs) for Corporate Planning, Operations, Finance and Administration, and the election
thereto of board members Edgar C. Trinidad, Eliezer de Jesus, Mary Jean D. Co
and Henry Chua, respectively; and
4. creation of the additional positions of
Special Assistants to the President and the Board Chairman, with Fortunato V.
de Castro and Arsenio Lopez Chua elected to the same, the directors elected/appointed
thereto not doing any work to deserve the monthly remuneration of P13,050.00
each.
In the same petition, docketed
as SEC Case No. 06-93-4491, Cruz alleged
that despite demands made upon the respondent members of the board of directors
to desist from creating the positions in question and to account for the
amounts incurred in creating the same, the demands were unheeded. Cruz thus prayed
that the respondent members of the board
of directors be made to pay Filport, jointly and severally, the sums of money variedly
representing the damages incurred as a result of the creation of the
offices/positions complained of and the aggregate amount of the questioned
increased salaries.
In their common Answer
with Counterclaim,[4]
the respondents denied the allegations of
mismanagement and materially averred as follows:
1. the creation of the executive committee and
the grant of per diems for the
attendance of each member are allowed under the by-laws of the corporation;
2. the increases in the salaries/emoluments
of the Chairman, Vice-President, Treasurer and Assistant General Manager were
well within the financial capacity of the corporation and well-deserved by the
officers elected thereto; and
3. the positions of AVPs for Corporate
Planning, Operations, Finance and Administration were already in existence
during the tenure of Cruz as president of the corporation, and were merely
recreated by the Board, adding that all those appointed to said positions of Assistant
Vice Presidents, as well as the additional position of Special Assistants to
the Chairman and the President, rendered services to deserve their
compensation.
In the same Answer, respondents
further averred that Cruz and his co-petitioner Minterbro, while admittedly stockholders
of Filport, have no authority nor standing to bring the so-called “derivative
suit” for and in behalf of the corporation; that respondent Mary Jean D. Co has
already ceased to be a corporate director and so with Fortunato V. de Castro, one of those holding
an assailed position; and that no
demand to cease and desist from further committing the acts complained of was
made upon the board. By way of affirmative defenses, respondents asserted that
(1) the petition is not duly verified by petitioner Filport which is the real
party-in-interest; (2) Filport, as represented by Cruz and Minterbro, failed to
exhaust remedies for redress within the corporation before bringing the suit;
and (3) the petition does not show that the
stockholders bringing the suit are joined as nominal parties. In support of
their counterclaim, respondents averred that Cruz filed the alleged derivative
suit in bad faith and purely for harassment purposes on account of his non-reelection to the board
in the 1991 general stockholders’ meeting.
As earlier narrated, the derivative suit (SEC Case
No. 06-93-4491) hibernated with the SEC for a long period of time. With the
enactment of R.A. No. 8799, the case was first turned over to the RTC of
Manila, Branch 14, sitting as a corporate court. Thereafter, on respondents’
motion, it was eventually transferred to the RTC of Davao City whereat it was docketed
as Civil Case No. 28,552-2001 and raffled to Branch 10 thereof.
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering:
Edgar C. Trinidad under the third and fourth causes of
action to restore to the corporation the total amount of salaries he received
as assistant vice president for corporate planning; and likewise ordering
Fortunato V. de Castro and Arsenio Lopez Chua under the fourth cause of action
to restore to the corporation the salaries they each received as special
assistants respectively to the president and board chairman. In case of insolvency of any or all of them,
the members of the board who created their positions are subsidiarily liable.
The counter claim is dismissed.
From
the adverse decision of the trial court, herein respondents went on appeal to
the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 73827.
In
its decision[6]
of 19 January 2004, the CA, taking exceptions to the findings of the trial court
that the creation of the positions of Assistant Vice President for Corporate Planning,
Special Assistant to the President and Special Assistant to the Board Chairman
was merely for accommodation purposes, granted
the respondents’ appeal, reversed and set aside the appealed decision of the
trial court and accordingly dismissed the so-called derivative suit filed by Cruz, et al., thus:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant appeal is GRANTED,
the challenged decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one
entered DISMISSING Civil Case No. 28,552-2001 with no pronouncement as
to costs.
SO
ORDERED.
Intrigued,
and quite understandably, by the fact that, in its decision, the CA, before proceeding to address the merits of
the appeal, prefaced its disposition with the statement reading “[T]he appeal is bereft of merit,”[7]
thereby contradicting the very fallo of
its own decision and the discussions made in the body thereof, respondents
filed with the appellate court a Motion For
Nunc Pro Tunc Order,[8]
thereunder praying that the phrase “[T]he appeal
is bereft of merit,” be corrected to read “[T]he appeal is impressed with merit.” In its resolution[9]
of
Hence, petitioners’ present recourse.
Petitioners assigned four (4) errors
allegedly committed by the CA. For clarity, we shall formulate the issues as
follows:
1. Whether the CA erred in holding that Filport’s
Board of Directors acted within its powers in creating the executive committee
and the positions of AVPs for Corporate Planning, Operations, Finance and
Administration, and those of the Special Assistants to the President and the
Board Chairman, each with corresponding remuneration, and in increasing the
salaries of the positions of Board Chairman, Vice-President, Treasurer and
Assistant General Manager; and
2. Whether
the CA erred in finding that no evidence exists to prove that (a) the positions
of AVP for Corporate Planning, Special Assistant to the President and Special
Assistant to the Board Chairman were created merely for accommodation, and (b)
the salaries/emoluments corresponding to said positions were actually paid to
and received by the directors appointed thereto.
For their part, respondents, aside
from questioning the propriety of the instant petition as the same allegedly
raises only questions of fact and not of law, also put in issue the purported
derivative nature of the main suit
initiated by petitioner Eliodoro C. Cruz allegedly in representation of and in
behalf of Filport and its stockholders.
The petition is
bereft of merit.
It is
axiomatic that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, only questions of law may be
raised and passed upon by the Court. Factual findings of the CA are binding and
conclusive and will not be reviewed or disturbed on appeal.[10]
Of course, the rule is not cast in stone; it admits of certain exceptions, such as when the findings of fact of the appellate court are
at variance with those of the trial court,[11]
as here. For this reason, and for a proper and complete resolution of the case,
we shall delve into the records and reexamine the same.
The governing
body of a corporation is its board of directors. Section 23 of the Corporation Code[12]
explicitly provides that
unless otherwise provided therein, the corporate powers of all corporations
formed under the Code shall be exercised, all business conducted and all
property of the corporation shall be controlled and held by a board of
directors. Thus, with the
exception only of some powers expressly granted by law to stockholders (or
members, in case of non-stock corporations), the board of directors (or
trustees, in case of non-stock corporations) has the sole authority to
determine policies, enter into contracts, and conduct the ordinary business of
the corporation within the scope of its charter, i.e., its articles of incorporation, by-laws and relevant
provisions of law. Verily, the authority of the board of directors is restricted to the
management of the regular business affairs of the corporation, unless more
extensive power is expressly conferred.
The raison d’etre behind the conferment of corporate powers on the
board of directors is not lost on the Court.
Indeed, the concentration in the board of the powers of control of corporate
business and of appointment of corporate
officers and managers is necessary for efficiency in any large organization. Stockholders
are too numerous, scattered and unfamiliar with the business of a corporation
to conduct its business directly. And so the plan of corporate organization is
for the stockholders to choose the directors who shall control and supervise
the conduct of corporate business.[13]
In the present
case, the board’s creation of the positions of Assistant Vice Presidents for Corporate Planning,
Operations, Finance and Administration, and those of the Special Assistants to
the President and the Board Chairman, was in accordance with the regular
business operations of Filport as it is authorized to do so by the corporation’s
by-laws, pursuant to the Corporation Code.
The election of officers of a
corporation is provided for under Section 25 of the Code which reads:
Sec. 25. Corporate officers, quorum. – Immediately
after their election, the directors of a corporation must formally organize by
the election of a president, who shall be a director, a treasurer who may or
may not be a director, a secretary who shall be a resident and citizen of the
In turn, the amended
Bylaws of Filport[14]
provides the following:
Officers of the corporation, as
provided for by the by-laws, shall be elected by the board of directors at their first meeting after the election of
Directors. xxx
The officers of the corporation shall be a Chairman of the Board,
President, a Vice-President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, a General Manager and such other officers as the Board of
Directors may from time to time provide, and these officers shall be
elected to hold office until their successors are elected and qualified. (Emphasis supplied.)
Likewise, the fixing of the
corresponding remuneration for the positions in question is provided for in the
same by-laws of the corporation, viz:
xxx The Board of Directors shall fix the compensation of the officers
and agents of the corporation. (Emphasis supplied.)
Unfortunately,
the bylaws of the corporation are silent as to the creation by its board of directors of an executive committee. Under Section 35[15]
of the Corporation Code, the
creation of an executive committee must be provided for in the bylaws of the
corporation.
Notwithstanding
the silence of Filport’s bylaws on the matter, we cannot rule that the creation
of the executive committee by the board of directors is illegal or unlawful. One reason is the absence of a showing as to
the true nature and functions of said executive committee considering that the
“executive committee,” referred to in Section 35 of the Corporation Code which
is as powerful as the board of directors and in effect acting for the board
itself, should be distinguished from other committees which are within the
competency of the board to create at anytime and whose actions require ratification
and confirmation by the board.[16] Another reason is that, ratiocinated by both
the two (2) courts below, the Board of Directors has the power to create
positions not provided for in Filport’s bylaws since the board is the corporation’s
governing body, clearly upholding the power of its board to exercise its prerogatives
in managing the business affairs of the corporation.
As well, it may not be
amiss to point out that, as testified to and admitted by petitioner Cruz himself,
it was during his incumbency as Filport president that the executive committee in question was
created, and that he was even the one who moved for the creation of the
positions of the AVPs for Operations, Finance and Administration.
By his acquiescence and/or ratification of the creation of the aforesaid
offices, Cruz is virtually precluded from suing to declare such acts of the
board as invalid or illegal. And it makes no difference that he sues in behalf
of himself and of the other stockholders.
Indeed, as his voice was not heard in protest when he was still Filport’s
president, raising a hue and cry only now leads to the inevitable conclusion
that he did so out of spite and resentment for his non-reelection as president of the corporation.
With regard to the increased
emoluments of the Board Chairman, Vice-President, Treasurer and Assistant
General Manager which are supposedly disproportionate to the volume and nature
of their work, the Court, after a
judicious scrutiny of the increase vis-à-vis
the value of the services rendered to the corporation by the officers concerned,
agrees with the findings of both the trial and appellate courts as to the
reasonableness and fairness thereof.
Continuing, petitioners
contend that the CA did not appreciate their evidence as to the alleged acts of
mismanagement by the then incumbent board.
A perusal of the records, however, reveals that petitioners merely
relied on the testimony of Cruz in support of their bold claim of mismanagement.
To the mind of the Court, Cruz’ testimony on the matter of mismanagement is bereft of any foundation.
As it were, his testimony consists merely of insinuations of alleged
wrongdoings on the part of the board. Without more, petitioners’ posture of
mismanagement must fall and with it goes their prayer to hold the respondents
liable therefor.
But even assuming, in gratia argumenti, that there was
mismanagement resulting to corporate damages and/or business losses, still the
respondents may not be held liable in the absence, as here, of a showing of bad
faith in doing the acts complained of.
If the cause of the losses is merely
error in business judgment, not amounting to bad faith or negligence, directors
and/or officers are not liable.[17]
For them to be held accountable, the mismanagement and the resulting losses on
account thereof are not the only matters to be proven; it is likewise necessary
to show that the directors and/or officers acted in bad faith and with malice
in doing the assailed acts. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a known duty through some motive or
interest or ill-will partaking of the nature of fraud.[18] We have searched the records and nowhere do we
find a “dishonest purpose” or “some moral obliquity,” or “conscious doing of a
wrong” on the part of the respondents that “partakes of the nature of fraud.”
We thus extend
concurrence to the following findings of the CA, affirmatory of those of the
trial court:
xxx As a matter of fact,
it was during the term of appellee Cruz, as president and director, that the
executive committee was created. What is
more, it was appellee himself who moved for the creation of the positions of
assistant vice presidents for operations, for finance, and for
administration. He should not be heard
to complain thereafter for similar corporate acts.
The increase in the salaries of the board chairman,
president, treasurer, and assistant general manager are indeed reasonable
enough in view of the responsibilities assigned to them, and the special
knowledge required, to be able to effectively discharge their respective
functions and duties.
Surely,
factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the CA, are
binding and conclusive on this Court.
There
is, however, a factual matter over which the CA and the trial court parted
ways. We refer to the accommodation angle.
The
trial court was with petitioner Cruz in saying that the creation of the positions
of the three (3) AVPs for Corporate Planning, Special Assistant to the
President and Special Assistant to the Board Chairman, each with a salary of P13,050.00
a month, was merely for accommodation purposes considering that Filport is not
a big corporation requiring multiple executive positions. Hence, the trial court’s order for said
officers to return the amounts they received as compensation.
On the other
hand, the CA took issue with the trial court and ruled that Cruz’s accommodation
theory is not based on facts and without any evidentiary substantiation.
We concur with
the line of the appellate court. For
truly, aside from Cruz’s bare and self-serving testimony, no other evidence was
presented to show the fact of “accommodation.” By itself, the testimony of Cruz is not enough
to support his claim that accommodation was the underlying factor behind the
creation of the aforementioned three (3) positions.
It is elementary in procedural law
that bare allegations do not
constitute evidence adequate to support a conclusion. It is basic
in the rule of evidence that he who alleges a fact bears the burden of proving
it by the quantum of proof required. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by
evidence, are not equivalent to proof under the Rules of Court.[19]
The party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance
of evidence.[20]
Besides, the determination
of the necessity for additional offices and/or positions in a corporation is a
management prerogative which courts are not wont to review in the absence of
any proof that such prerogative was exercised in bad faith or with malice.
Indeed, it
would be an improper judicial intrusion into the internal affairs of Filport were
the Court to determine the propriety or impropriety of the creation of offices
therein and the grant of salary increases to officers thereof. Such are
corporate and/or business decisions which only the corporation’s Board of
Directors can determine.
So it is that
in Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. v. CA,[21] the Court
unequivocally held:
Questions of policy or of management are left solely to the honest
decision of the board as the business manager of the corporation, and the court
is without authority to substitute its judgment for that of the board, and as
long as it acts in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the
interest of the corporation, its orders are not reviewable by the courts.
In a last-ditch attempt to salvage their cause, petitioners assert
that the CA went beyond the issues raised in the court of origin when it ruled on the absence of receipt
of actual payment of the salaries/emoluments pertaining to the positions of
Assistant Vice-President for Corporate Planning, Special Assistant to the Board
Chairman and Special Assistant to the President. Petitioners insist that the
issue of nonpayment was never raised by the respondents before the trial court,
as in fact, the latter allegedly admitted the same in their Answer With Counterclaim.
We
are not persuaded.
By claiming that Filport suffered
damages because the directors appointed to the assailed positions are not doing
anything to deserve their compensation, petitioners are saddled with the burden
of proving that salaries were actually paid.
Since the trial court, in effect, found that the petitioners
successfully proved payment of the salaries when it directed the reimbursements
of the same, respondents necessarily have to raise the issue on appeal. And the
CA rightly resolved the issue when it found that no evidence of actual payment
of the salaries in question was actually adduced. Respondents’ alleged
admission of the fact of payment cannot be inferred from a reading of the pertinent
portions of the parties’ respective initiatory pleadings. Respondents’
allegations in their Answer With
Counterclaim that the officers corresponding to the positions created “performed
the work called for in their positions” or “deserve their compensation,” cannot
be interpreted to mean that they were “actually paid” such compensation. Directly put, the averment that “one deserves
one’s compensation” does not necessarily carry the implication that “such
compensation was actually remitted or received.” And because payment was not duly
proven, there is no evidentiary or factual basis for the trial court to direct
respondents to make reimbursements thereof to the corporation.
This brings us to the respondents’
claim that the case filed by the petitioners before the SEC, which eventually
landed in
We sustain the petitioners.
Under the Corporation Code, where a
corporation is an injured party, its power to sue is lodged with its board of
directors or trustees. But an individual
stockholder may be permitted to institute a derivative suit in behalf of the
corporation in order to protect or vindicate corporate rights whenever the
officials of the corporation refuse to sue, or when a demand upon them to file
the necessary action would be futile because they are the ones to be sued, or because
they hold control of the corporation.[22] In such
actions, the corporation is the real party-in-interest while the suing stockholder,
in behalf of the corporation, is only a nominal party.[23]
Here,
the action below is principally for damages resulting from alleged mismanagement
of the affairs of Filport by its directors/officers, it being alleged that the
acts of mismanagement are detrimental to the interests of Filport. Thus, the injury complained of primarily
pertains to the corporation so that the suit for relief should be by the
corporation. However, since the ones to
be sued are the directors/officers of the corporation itself, a stockholder, like
petitioner Cruz, may validly institute a “derivative suit” to vindicate the alleged
corporate injury, in which case Cruz is only a nominal party while Filport is
the real party-in-interest. For sure, in the prayer portion of petitioners’ petition before the
SEC, the reliefs prayed were asked to be
made in favor of Filport.
Besides, the requisites before a
derivative suit can be filed by a stockholder are present in this case, to wit:
a) the
party bringing suit should be a shareholder as of the time of the act or
transaction complained of, the number of his shares not being material;
b) he
has tried to exhaust intra-corporate remedies, i.e., has made a demand on the
board of directors for the appropriate relief but the latter has failed or
refused to heed his plea; and
c) the
cause of action actually devolves on the corporation, the wrongdoing or harm
having been, or being caused to the corporation and not to the particular
stockholder bringing the suit.[24]
Indisputably, petitioner Cruz (1) is a
stockholder of Filport; (2) he sought without success to have its board of
directors remedy what he perceived as wrong when he wrote a letter requesting
the board to do the necessary action in his complaint; and (3) the alleged wrong
was in truth a wrong against the stockholders of the corporation generally, and
not against Cruz or Minterbro, in particular. In the end, it is Filport, not
Cruz which directly stands to benefit from the suit. And while it is true that
the complaining stockholder must show to the satisfaction of the court that he
has exhausted all the means within his reach to attain within the corporation
itself the redress for his grievances, or actions in conformity to his wishes,
nonetheless, where the corporation is under the complete control of the
principal defendants, as here, there is no necessity of making a demand upon
the directors. The reason is obvious: a demand upon the board to institute an
action and prosecute the same effectively would have been useless and an
exercise in futility. In fine, we rule and so hold that the petition filed with
the SEC at the instance of Cruz, which ultimately found its way to the RTC of
Davao City as Civil Case No. 28,552-2001,
is a derivative suit of which Cruz has the necessary legal standing to
institute.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED and the
challenged decision of the CA is AFFIRMED
in all respects.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Arsenio J. Magpale; Rollo, pp. 29-37.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Supra at note 1
[7] CA decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 33.
[8]
[9]
[10] Bank
of the Philippine
[11]
[12] Batas Pambasa Blg. 68.
[13] Aguedo Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Phils., 1980 ed., Vol. III.
[14] Rollo, pp. 120-130.
[15] Sec.
35. Executive committee. – The by-laws of a corporation may
create an executive committee, composed of not less than three members of the
board to be appointed by the board. Said
committee may act, by majority vote of all its members, on such specific
matters within the competence of the board, as may be delegated to it in the
by-laws or on a majority vote of the board, except with respect to: xxx
[16] H. de Leon, The Corporation Code of the Phils., 2002 ed., pp. 310-311.
[17] Board
of Liquidators v. Heirs of Maximo M. Kalaw, et al., G.R. No. L-18805,
[18] Philippine
Stock Exchange v. CA, G.R. No. 125469,
[19] Garcia
v. De Vera, A.C. No. 6052,
[20] Pastor v. PNB, G.R.
No. 141316,
[21] Supra.
[22] Chua
v. CA, G.R. No. 150793,
[23]
Asset Privatization
Trust v. CA, 360
Phil. 768, 804-805 (1998).
[24] San Miguel Corporation, represented by Eduardo De Los Angeles v. Ernest Khan, G.R. No. 85339, August 11, 1989, 176 SCRA 447, 462.