THIRD DIVISION
|
REPUBLIC OF THE Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R. No.
159275 Present: CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. |
|
THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), RICARDO C. SILVERIO,
FERDINAND E. MARCOS (now substituted by his heirs), IMELDA R. MARCOS and
PABLO P. CARLOS, JR. (now substituted
by his heirs), Respondents. |
Promulgated: August
25, 2010 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
This petition for certiorari seeks to
annul and set aside the June 9, 2003 Resolution[1]
of public respondent Sandiganbayan (Second Division) which denied the motion to
reopen for presentation of plaintiff’s additional evidence filed by the
Republic of the Philippines.
The factual antecedents:
On
Private respondents Silverio and
Carlos, Jr. were specifically charged with the following acts:
a) gave to above Defendant spouses improper
payments such as kickbacks and/or commissions in hundreds of thousands of US
dollars in exchange for an award to Defendant Ricardo C. Silverio of Kawasaki
Scrap Loaders and Toyota Rear Dump Trucks, respectively;
b) received annually, for three consecutive
years, special accommodations, privileges and exemptions by the Central Bank in
the form of (i) increased dollar import quota allocation for the importation of
Toyota vehicles for Delta Motors[,] Inc., and airconditioning and refrigerating
equipment in excess of the limits prescribed under applicable Central Bank
Rules and Regulations, and (ii) a more liberal mode of payment (i.e., documents
against acceptance (D/A) vs. letter of credit (L/C) arrangement) contrary to
Central Bank Rules and Regulations and to the manifest disadvantage of
Plaintiff and the Filipino people;
c) obtained huge amounts in loans, guarantees
and other types of credit accommodations under favored and very liberal terms
of credit from government financial institution, such as the Philippine
National Bank, to finance the establishment, operation and working capital
requirements of his various business/financial ventures, more particularly, the
Delta Motors Corporation, to the serious detriment of Plaintiff and the
Filipino people;
d) was extended preferential status and
treatment in the implementation of the Government’s Progressive Car
Manufacturing Program (PCMP) resulting in (i) unfair advantage to Defendant
Ricardo C. Silverio, (ii) unjust and improper discrimination against the other
participants in the PCMP, and (iii) the ultimate demise of PCMP, to the grave
damage and prejudice of Plaintiff and the Filipino people;
e) obtained from the Central Bank
multi-million peso emergency loans as additional capital infusion to Filipinas
Bank, a commercial banking institution owned and/or controlled by Defendant
Ricardo C. Silverio;
f) acted as dummy, nominee or agent of
Defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos in several corporations
where said Defendants have substantial interests such as the Meralco Securities
and the First Philippine Holdings Corporation and, with the active
collaboration, knowledge and willing participation of Fe Roa Gimenez and Hector
Rivera who served as conduit for the receipt of funds from said corporations. Defendants Fe Roa Gimenez and Hector Rivera
are subjects of separate suits.[2]
After the presentation of its
witnesses Godofredo dela Paz (Bank Officer III, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas)
and Ma. Lourdes O. Magno (PCGG Librarian), petitioner rested its case. In its Formal Offer of Evidence dated
EXH.
A - Resolution of the Supreme Court promulgated on
Purpose: To show that there is a prima facie case
against the defendant Ricardo Silverio, i.e., defendant has acquired assets and
properties manifestly out of proportion to his usual and normal income.
EXH.
B - Memorandum dated
EXH.
B-1 - Signature of Godofredo dela Paz appearing on page 3 of Exh. B.
Purpose: To show that Delta Motors Corporation, a
corporation 96% owned by defendant Ricardo Silverio, was granted exemptions by
the Central Bank in the matter of importing motor vehicles and air conditioning
and refrigeration equipment because of said defendant’s close association with
former President Ferdinand Marcos.
EXH.
C - A certification dated
EXH.
C-1 - Signature of defendant Ricardo
Silverio appearing at the bottom of Exh. C-1.
Purpose: To show that defendant Ricardo Silverio gave
to former President Marcos improper payments in exchange for an award to
defendant of
EXH.
D - A certification dated
EXH.
D-1 - Signature of defendant Ricardo Silverio appearing at the bottom of Exh.
D.
Purpose: To show that defendant Ricardo Silverio gave
to former President Marcos improper payments in exchange for an award to
defendant of Kawasaki Scoop loaders.
EXH.
E - Letter dated
Purpose: To show that the enterprises ostensibly owned
by Ricardo Silverio, e.g. Filipinas Bank and Delta Motors Corp., are
beneficially owned and controlled by former President Ferdinand Marcos.[3]
Acting
on the formal offer of evidence by the petitioner, as well as the
comments/oppositions respectively filed by respondents Silverio, Carlos, Jr.
and Marcos, public respondent issued a Resolution[4]
on January 10, 2002 admitting only Exhibit “A” and denying admission of Exhibits
“B” to “E” for being mere photocopies and irrelevant to the purpose for which they
were offered, and failure to prove the due execution and authenticity of
private writings. Nonetheless, the
documents not admitted were allowed to remain on the records.
On
On February 26, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to
Admit Herein Motion for Reconsideration with Supplement to Formal Offer of
Evidence[6]
setting forth the following arguments: (a) Technical rules should be set aside
when necessary to achieve the purposes behind PCGG’s creation; (b) The best
evidence rule does not apply since the contents of the writings are not in
issue; (c) Assuming arguendo that the best evidence rule applies, then
secondary evidence may be availed of when the original writing itself is unavailable and cannot be produced in
court; and (d) Exhibits “B” and “B-1” are admissible because they are relevant
in establishing the fact that defendant Silverio was granted accommodations by
reason of his close association with former President Marcos.[7]
In a Resolution[8]
dated
On
7. That on
Attached
herewith are certified true copies
of the said documents, the originals of which will be presented in the course
of the proceedings, to wit:
(a) Memorandum of Godofredo dela Paz dated
(b)
Delta Motor[s] Corporation stock certificate for 10,000 shares issued to
defendant Silverio; (Annex “C” hereof) which was marked as plaintiff’s Exhibit “J”
in its Pre-Trial Brief;
(c)
Philippine American Investments Corporation stock certificate for 10,000 shares
issued to Jose P. Madrigal (Annex “D” hereof) which was marked as plaintiff’s
Exhibit “I” in its Pre-Trial Brief;
(d)
Lepanto Consolidated Mining stock certificate for 3,183,750 shares issued to
(e)
Meralco stock certificate for 1,566 shares issued to defendant Silverio (Annex
“F” hereof) which was marked as plaintiff’s Exhibit “C” in its Pre-Trial Brief;
(f)
Meralco stock certificate for 1,175 shares issued to defendant Silverio (Annex
“G” hereof) which was marked as plaintiff’s Exhibit “D” in its Pre-Trial Brief;
(g)
Meralco stock certificate for 1,175 shares issued to defendant Silverio (Annex “H”
hereof) which was marked as plaintiff’s Exhibit “C” in its Pre-Trial Brief; and
(h)
letter of Silverio to former President Ferdinand E. Marcos dated
Attached
also as Annexes are certified photocopies of Silverio’s Letter dated
Plaintiff
intends to recall Ma.
8. Further to prove its case against defendants,
plaintiff also intends to present as additional
evidence the relevant contents of the transcript of defendant Silverio’s direct
testimony in the case of US v. Imelda
Marcos and Adnan Kashoggi, before the US District Court, Southern
District of New York (SSS87, Cr 0598 [JFK]), particularly on the following
facts:
a.
The personal help given by Ferdinand Marcos to defendant Silverio regarding the
approval of an SSS loan;
b.
The corresponding transfer of shares of Delta Motors Corporation from defendant
Silverio to Ferdinand Marcos then valued at $900,000;
c.
Defendant Silverio’s receipt and endorsement in blank of shares of Meralco
Securities and First Philippine Holdings Corp. which were then given to a
certain Mr. Fontanilla, one of the secretaries of Mr. Roberto Benedicto, and
which were then delivered to Mr. Marcos;
d.
Delivery of cash dividends to Fe Roa Gimenez in
e.
The 15% commission of Mr. Marcos out of the $6,000,000 from the Reparations
Commission, among others.
Plaintiff
intends to make the necessary request for admission of such additional vital
evidence, since the purpose of the rule governing requests for admissions of
facts and genuineness of documents is to expedite trial and to relieve parties
of the costs of proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth
of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.
Attached
herewith as Annex “L” is the letter
dated
On
the basis of the foregoing, plaintiff respectfully seeks to reopen the case for
the presentation of its additional evidence.[11] (Emphasis supplied.)
Respondent Silverio filed his
Opposition[12]
asserting that the grounds cited by petitioner do not warrant a reopening of
the presentation of evidence. Assuming that petitioner identified the
“misfiled” documents in its pre-trial brief, still petitioner’s failure to
present the same was due to gross and inexcusable negligence. He further pointed out that Atty. Edgardo L.
Kilayko of the PCGG categorically declared at the
In its Reply[13]
to Opposition, petitioner argued that the paramount interest of justice, the
recovery of ill-gotten wealth declared as an overriding policy of State under
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, requires that petitioner Republic be
granted the opportunity to present the originals of the exhibits it earlier
presented, in compliance with the court’s lawful order when it denied admission
of mere photocopies of the same when they were first formally offered. Petitioner also stressed that respondent
Silverio’s right to speedy trial was not violated as there was no unreasonable
request for postponement of the trial but a supplication for the reopening of
the case to present additional evidence to protect the State’s interest, the
additional evidence sought to be offered being relevant and material to
petitioner’s case. Aside from the
originals of the exhibits earlier formally offered, as well as documents listed
in the Pre-Trial Brief, petitioner seeks to present in evidence respondent
Silverio’s own testimony in the case of US
v. Imelda Marcos and Adnan Kashoggi wherein he testified to matters
referred to in petitioner’s Motion to Reopen the presentation of evidence in
this case; these are very material as they contain statements given by
respondent Silverio under oath in a US District Court referring to acts and
documents concerning the very allegations sought to be established by
petitioner in this case. There can be
no cries of surprise on the part of respondent Silverio since everything sought
to be introduced are of public records, and as for aforementioned testimony,
based on his own personal knowledge.
On
WE
view the motion more of the nature of a plea to reconsider our resolution
denying the admission of Exhibits “B” to “E”.
Thus, the prayer is to allow to present additional witness and/or to
recall witness to establish the existence and execution of the original copies
of Exhibits “B” to “E”. If we afford affirmative relief to the
motion, it will render completely ineffective and totally at naught our
Resolution denying the admission of these exhibits with all the grounds
redoubtable as they are, spelled out in our Resolution. Our
Resolution admitting only Exhibits “B” to “E” (sic) has long become final and
executory and the issues in connection thereto has long been laid to rest. WE cannot allow it to be revived on the
pretext of another motion captioned differently without doing violence to the settled
rule of finality of orders or decision.
Worse everything would be an endless rigmarole without any end of the
proceedings on sight.
Moreover,
the documents and proofs alleged in the plaintiffs motion have been existing
all along, some in fact as early as fourteen (14) years ago, and after these
years of hearing, the Court cannot just
simply brush aside what had been taken up, and on the mere claim that those
documents were “misfiled” and are now ready to be presented, reopen again the
proceedings with all the adverse consequences to the time honored orderly
presentation of evidence and the
universally acclaimed expeditious, speedy and inexpensive disposition of all
action[s] and proceedings.
WHEREFORE,
for lack of merit, plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Plaintiff’s Presentation of
Evidence is denied.
SO
ORDERED.[15] (Italics
supplied.)
Hence, this recourse via certiorari alleging grave abuse of
discretion in the denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen presentation of
plaintiff’s evidence.
On November 10, 2003, we granted petitioner’s urgent
motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order and directed public
respondent to refrain from acting on and/or taking cognizance of the Motion to
Dismiss by way of Demurrer to Evidence
(Motion to Dismiss) filed by respondent Silverio, and from enforcing its
June 9, 2003 Resolution denying petitioner’s motion to reopen for presentation
of additional evidence and its Order given in open court on August 1, 2003
submitting SB Civil Case No. 0011 for resolution, until further orders from
this Court.[16]
Petitioner submits that contrary to the ruling of
public respondent, resolutions denying admissibility to petitioner’s
documentary exhibits, as well as the subject resolution denying the motion to
present additional evidence, were not final orders which may no longer be
disturbed. Citing the case of Looyuko v. Court of Appeals,[17]
petitioner points out that before judgment is rendered and for good cause
shown, the court may still allow the introduction of additional evidence, and
that is still within a liberal interpretation of the period for trial. Since no judgment has yet been rendered in SB
Civil Case No. 0011, the presentation of additional evidence may still be
resolved by public respondent and integrated in the judgment disposing of all
the claims in the said case.[18]
As to the length of time for the trial of the case,
petitioner maintains that it is not fair to attribute delay solely to it;
presentation of plaintiff’s evidence was only terminated in 2002 when petitioner
filed its formal offer of evidence, which public respondent denied. The
presentation of additional evidence will not cause substantial injustice to
respondent Silverio as these documents and the witnesses to be recalled were
all declared in petitioner’s Pre-Trial Brief, while the testimony in a foreign
court is none other than that of respondent Silverio, confirming material
facts, which are the subject of SB Civil Case No. 0011. On the other hand, disallowing the
presentation of additional evidence would cause undue prejudice to petitioner’s
case.[19]
Respondent Silverio reiterates that public
respondent did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion
which it claims will enable it to present the originals of the exhibits earlier
offered for admission but only two (2) actually relates to the exhibits it had
already offered in evidence. Public
respondent court had denied admission to these two (2) exhibits not only
because they violated the Best Evidence Rule but also because they are irrelevant
and not properly authenticated. It is
argued that the policy of relaxing the technical rules of procedure in cases of
recovery of ill-gotten wealth is not a license to disregard the fundamental
Rules of Evidence. As to the testimony
given by respondent Silverio, petitioner had said that the same was given wayback
in 1990 or twelve (12) years ago. Hence,
it was available to the Republic long before it drafted its Pre-trial Brief and
before it commenced presentation of evidence.
Petitioner’s failure to present the alleged testimony of respondent
Silverio is gross and inexcusable negligence and therefore cannot be a ground
to reopen the case. Petitioner’s
asseveration that to reopen the proceedings to allow it to present additional
evidence would not cause substantial injustice to respondent Silverio cannot be
serious. If twenty (20) years of long
litigation is not harassment and injustice, respondent Silverio does not know what
is. Respondent Silverio also points out
that the Republic’s pre-trial brief dated September 1990 was superseded by the
February 23, 1996 Pre-Trial Brief wherein petitioner makes no reference to any
of the “misfiled” documents, and hence petitioner is now precluded from presenting
such “misfiled” documents.[20]
We grant the petition.
First, on petitioner’s immediate resort to this
Court without filing a motion for reconsideration with the public respondent of
the assailed resolution denying its motion to reopen for presentation of
additional evidence.
As
a rule, the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, lies only when the lower court has
been given the opportunity to correct the error imputed to it through a motion
for reconsideration of the assailed order or resolution.[21]
This
rule, though, has certain exceptions: (1) when the issue raised is purely of
law, (2) when public interest is involved, or (3) in cases of urgency. As a fourth exception, the Court has also
ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of the
remedy of certiorari is not a sine qua
non, when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been
squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court.[22]
Aside from the public interest involved in the recovery
of alleged ill-gotten wealth by the Government, it was shown that the issue herein
raised by petitioner had already been squarely argued by it and amply discussed
by public respondent in its assailed resolution. Hence, the requirement of
prior filing of a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with.
Contrary to public respondent’s posture, its order
denying admission to petitioner’s documentary exhibits, as well as the denial
of the motion to reopen for presentation of additional evidence for plaintiff,
was merely interlocutory. An order that does
not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Court’s task of
adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining their rights and
liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things
remain to be done by the Court, is interlocutory.[23]
Certiorari is an
appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal
issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion; and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, and the remedy of
appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.[24] Recourse
to a petition for certiorari to assail an interlocutory order is now expressly recognized in the ultimate
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court on the
subject of appeal, which states:[25]
In all the above instances where
the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved
party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
Public respondent seriously erred in denying the motion to reopen for
presentation of additional evidence on the basis of the supposed “final and
executory” ruling which denied admission of Exhibits “B” to “E” in the Formal
Offer of Evidence filed by the petitioner. Admission of additional evidence is addressed
to the sound discretion of the trial court.
Indeed, in the furtherance of
justice, the court may grant the parties the opportunity to adduce additional
evidence bearing upon the main issue in question.[26] The remedy of reopening a case for
presenting further proofs was meant to prevent a miscarriage of justice.[27]
While it is true that the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, prescribed an order of trial (Section 5, Rule 30),
relaxation of the rule is permitted in sound discretion of the court. According to Justice Jose Y. Feria in his
annotations on civil procedure:
After the parties have produced their respective
direct proofs, they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence only, but, it has
been held, the court, for good reasons in the furtherance of justice, may
permit them to offer evidence upon their original case, and its ruling will not
be disturbed in the appellate court where no abuse of discretion appears. So, generally, additional evidence is allowed
when it is newly discovered, or where it has been omitted through inadvertence
or mistake, or where the purpose of the evidence is to correct evidence
previously offered.[28]
Considering that petitioner, in requesting to
reopen the presentation of additional evidence after it has rested its case,
sought to present documentary exhibits consisting of certified copies which had
earlier been denied admission for being photocopies, additional documents
previously mentioned in its pre-trial brief and new additional evidence
material in establishing the main issue of
ill-gotten wealth allegedly amassed by the private respondents, singly
or collectively, public respondent should have, in the exercise of sound
discretion, properly allowed such presentation of additional evidence. Bearing in mind that even if the originals of
the documentary exhibits offered as additional evidence have been in the
custody of the PCGG since the filing of the complaint or at least at the time
of the preparation of its original pre-trial brief in September 1990, public
respondent should have duly considered the explanation given by PCGG
Commissioner Ruben C. Carranza and PCGG Librarian Ma. Lourdes O. Magno in their
respective affidavits[29]
attached to the motion, as to the belated discovery of the original documentary
evidence which had long been in the possession of PCGG. Given the voluminous documents and papers
involved in ill-gotten wealth cases, it was indeed unavoidable that in the
course of trial certain documentary exhibits were omitted or unavailable by
inadvertence, as what had happened in this case where the subject original
documentary evidence were found misfiled in a different case folder.
Lamentably, public respondent peremptorily denied
petitioner’s plea for a chance to present additional evidence vital to its
case, saying that it cannot “just simply brush aside what had been taken up
[after these years of hearing],” and even alluding to the supposed “adverse
consequences to the time honored orderly presentation of evidence and the
universally acclaimed expeditious, speedy and inexpensive disposition of all
action[s] and proceedings.” On the other
hand, respondent Silverio contended that allowing the motion to reopen would
only cause him to suffer further “harassment and injustice.” However, perusal of the records plainly
reveals that petitioner was not responsible for the delay in the prosecution of
this case. The protracted litigation was due to the numerous pleadings,
postponements and various motions filed by respondents Marcoses. Clearly, public respondent’s rigid
application of the rule on order of trial was arbitrary, improper and in utter
disregard of the demands of substantial justice.
Executive Order No. 14, series of 1986, issued by
former President Corazon C. Aquino, provided that technical rules of procedure
and evidence shall not be strictly applied to cases involving ill-gotten
wealth. Apropos is our pronouncement in Republic
v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division):[30]
In all cases involving alleged ill-gotten wealth brought by or
against the Presidential Commission on Good Government, it is the policy of
this Court to set aside technicalities and formalities that serve merely to
delay or impede their judicious resolution. This Court prefers to have such cases resolved on the merits
before the Sandiganbayan. Substantial
justice to all parties, not mere legalisms or perfection of form, should now be
relentlessly pursued. Eleven years have
passed since the government started its search for and reversion of such
alleged ill-gotten wealth. The definitive resolution of such cases on the
merits is thus long overdue. If there is
adequate proof of illegal acquisition, accumulation, misappropriation, fraud or
illicit conduct, let it be brought out now. Let the titles over these
properties be finally determined and quieted down with all reasonable speed,
free of delaying technicalities and annoying procedural sidetracks. (Emphasis supplied.)
It was incumbent upon the public respondent to
adopt a liberal stance in the matter of procedural technicalities. More so in the instant case where the showing
of a prima facie case of ill-gotten
wealth was sustained by this Court in Silverio
v. Presidential Commission on Good Government in No. L-77645 under the Resolution
dated
The term
“grave abuse of discretion” connotes capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to excess, or a lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by
law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised
in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[33]
Public
respondent gravely abused its discretion in disallowing the presentation of
additional evidence by the petitioner after the latter made a formal offer of
documentary evidence, at the time the respondents had not even commenced the
presentation of their evidence. Such
arbitrary denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen for presentation of
additional evidence would result in serious miscarriage of justice as it
deprives the Republic of the chance to fully prove its case against the
respondents and recover what could be “illegally-gotten” wealth.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE and the writ prayed for accordingly GRANTED. The Resolution dated
The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court
on
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN
S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS
P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
MARIA
Associate Justice |
|
A
T T E S T A T I O N
I attest 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.
|
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice Chairperson,
Third Division |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, 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.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|||
[1] Rollo,
pp. 32-35. Penned by Associate Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval and concurred in
by Associate Justices Godofredo L. Legaspi and Raoul V. Victorino.
[2] Sandiganbayan
records, Vol. I, pp. 11-14.
[3] Rollo,
pp. 51-52.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] G.R. Nos. 102696, 102716, 108257 &
120954,
[18] Rollo,
p. 24.
[19]
[20]
[21] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
141796 & 141804, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 146, 158, citing Yau v.
Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. Nos. 126731 & 128623, July 11, 2002,
384 SCRA 340, 348.
[22] Government of the United States of America
v. Purganan, G.R. No.148571, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 623, 650,
citing Phil. Air Lines Employees Association v. Phil. Air Lines, Inc., No. L-31396, January 30, 1982, 111
SCRA 215, 219 and Progressive Development
Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123555, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 637, 647.
[23] Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, No.
L-60036, January 27, 1987, 147 SCRA 334, 340, cited in United
Overseas Bank (formerly Westmont Bank) v. Ros, G.R. No. 171532, August 7,
2007, 529 SCRA 334, 344.
[24]
[25]
[26] Valencia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
165996, October 17, 2005, 473 SCRA 279, 290, citing United
States v. Gallegos, 37 Phil. 289, 293-294 (1917). See also People
v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47,
[27] See Cabarles v. Maceda, G.R. No. 161330, February 20, 2007, 516 SCRA
303, 315, citing II F. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium 551 (10th
ed., 2004).
[28] Jose
Y. Feria and Maria Concepcion S. Noche, Civil
Procedure Annotated, 2001 Edition, Vol. I, p. 574, citing Lopez v. Liboro, 81 Phil. 429, 434
(1948). See also Rivera v. Palattao,
G.R. No. 157824,
[29] Rollo, pp. 339-343.
[30] G.R.
No. 113420,
[31] 155
SCRA 60.
[32]
[33] Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Second Division),
G.R. No. 129406, March 6, 2006, 484 SCRA 119, 127, citing Litton
Mills, Inc. v. Galleon Trader, Inc.,
No. L-40867,