Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
|
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, - versus
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 172458
Present:
CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.
Promulgated: December 14, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
seeks to reverse and set aside the January 27, 2006[2]
and April 19, 2006[3] Resolutions of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc
(CTA En Banc) in C.T.A. E.B. NO. 145, which dismissed
outright the Petition for Review filed by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) dated
December 27, 2005 for being filed four days beyond the additional 15 days granted
to file such petition.
On April 15,
1999, petitioner PNB filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) its
Tentative Return for 1998 with the documents enumerated in the List of
Attachments to Annual Income Tax Return Calendar Year Ended December 31, 1998 enclosed. On September 30, 1999, PNB filed its Amended
Income Tax Return for 1998, with the corresponding attachments to an amended
annual income tax return appended, including copies of the Certificates and
Schedule of Creditable Withholding Taxes for 1998. PNB likewise filed its Corporate Quarterly
Returns for the calendar year 1998.[4]
On February 8,
2001, PNB filed with respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) an
administrative claim for refund in the amount of ₱6,028,594.00, which were payments made in excess of
its income tax liability for 1998.[5]
As BIR did not
act upon PNBs claim for refund, PNB, on March 30, 2001, filed with the Second
Division of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA Division) a Petition for Review,[6]
and prayed that it be refunded or issued a tax credit certificate in the amount
of ₱6,028,594.00,
representing creditable taxes withheld from PNBs income from the sale of real
property, rental income, commissions, and management fees for the taxable year
1998.
In his Answer,[7]
the CIR alleged that PNBs claim for refund/tax credit is subject first to an
investigation and that it failed to establish its right to a refund.
After PNB had rested its case, the
CIR manifested that he would not be presenting evidence. The parties were thereafter required to
submit their memoranda.[8]
On May 19, 2003, the BIR issued in
PNBs favor Tax Credit Certificate No. SN 023837 for ₱4,154,353.42, leaving
a balance of ₱1,874,240.58 out of PNBs total claim of ₱6,028,594.00. PNB then informed the CTA Division of such tax credit
certificate, and manifested that its acceptance was without prejudice to
recovering the balance of its total claim.[9]
Consequently, the CIR filed a
Motion,[10]
asking that he be allowed to present evidence on PNBs excluded claim. The CIR argued that the amount of ₱1,874,240.58
was disallowed because it was not remitted to the BIR, as verified by its
Regional Accounting Division.[11]
On August 11, 2005, the CTA
Division rendered its Decision,[12]
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
present Petition For Review is hereby partially GRANTED. Respondent is
hereby ORDERED to REFUND or ISSUE a Tax Credit Certificate in favor of herein
petitioner in the amount of ₱1,428,661.66, representing the latters
unutilized creditable withholding tax for the year 1998.[13]
The CTA Division
held that payments of withholding taxes for a certain taxable year were
creditable to the payees income tax liability as determined after it had filed
its income tax returns the following year.
The CTA Division said that since PNB posted net losses, it was not
liable for any income tax and consequently, the taxes withheld during the
course of the taxable year, which was 1998, while collected legally under
Revenue Regulations No. 02-98, Section 2.57 (B), became untenable and took on
the nature of erroneously collected taxes at the end of that year. The CTA Division averred that while the right
to a refund is not automatic and must be established by sufficient evidence,
there is nothing in the Tax Code that would suggest that the actual remittance
of the withholding tax is a condition precedent to claim for a tax refund. Moreover, the CTA Division added, that the
CIR failed to present the certification to prove his contention of PNBs
non-remittance of the disallowed amount.
However, the CTA Division affirmed the disallowance of eight
transactions, amounting to ₱445,578.92 as they had already been reported as
income for other years, had not been recorded, or were not supported by
pertinent documents.[14]
On September 14,
2005, PNB filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration,[15]
asserting its entitlement to be refunded the amount of ₱445,578.92, by explaining each transaction involved
and pinpointed by the CTA Division. This
however was still denied by the CTA Division in its Resolution[16]
dated November 15, 2005, for lack of merit.
Aggrieved, PNB,
filed a partial appeal by way of Petition for Review[17]
under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 9282[18]
before the CTA En Banc, to review and
modify the CTA Divisions August 11,
2005 Decision. This petition was
received by the CTA En Banc on
December 27, 2005, four days beyond the additional 15 days granted to PNB to
file its petition.
Thus, on January
27, 2006, the CTA En Banc issued a
Resolution[19] denying due course and consequently dismissing
PNBs petition for the following reasons:
1)
The
Petition For Review was filed four (4) days late on December 27, 2005, the
reglementary deadline for the timely filing of such petition being December 23,
2005.
Appeal is
a statutory privilege and must be exercised in the manner provided by law. Therefore, perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory, but
jurisdictional, and non-compliance is fatal having the effect of rendering the
judgment final and executory (Cabellan
vs. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 119).
Not only that, late appeals deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction
to alter the final judgment much less entertain the appeal (Pedrosa vs. Hill, 257 SCRA 373).
2)
The
petition is not accompanied by the duplicate original or certified true copies
of the assailed Decision dated August 11, 2005 and Resolution dated November
15, 2005, in violation of Section 2, Rule
6 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, in relation to Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
3)
The
Petition does not contain an Affidavit of Service, in violation of Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
In the case of Policarpio vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA
344, 351, the Supreme Court did not hesitate to dismiss the petition for
failure to attach an affidavit of service.
Lastly, Section 7 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that:
SEC. 7. Effect
of failure to comply with requirements.- The failure of the petitioner to
comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the
docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the
petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the
petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
Persistent in
its claim, PNB filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation of
Compliance[20]
on February 23, 2006, and answered each ground propounded by the CTA En Banc in its Resolution.
PNB asserted that
its petition was filed on December 23, 2005, which was the last day of the
additional 15-day period granted by the CTA En
Banc, via LBC Express, as shown by the copy of LBC Official Receipt No.
12990350[21]
dated December 23, 2005. PNB explained
that its counsel, Atty. Flerida P. Zaballa-Banzuela, accompanied by her
administrative assistant, tried to personally file the petition with the CTA En Banc on December 23, 2005. However, PNB claimed, that due to heavy
traffic, Atty. Zaballa-Banzuela arrived at the CTA office in Quezon City at
4:30 p.m., just as the CTA personnel were leaving the CTA premises in their
shuttle bus.[22]
PNB attached to its
Motion the Affidavit[23]
of Christopher Sarmiento, the Security Guard who was then assigned at the CTA
main gate. Sarmiento averred that he did
not allow Atty. Zaballa-Banzuela to enter the CTA compound because there was no
one left to receive her document. He
also alleged that Atty. Zaballa-Banzuela even tried to ask some of the CTA
personnel who were on board the CTA shuttle that passed her by, if they could
receive her document, but they declined.
This was corroborated by Atty. Zaballa-Banzuelas administrative
assistant, Macrina J. Cataniag, in her Affidavit,[24]
also annexed to PNBs Motion.
PNB argued that
while its petition was deposited with LBC Express on December 23, 2005, very
well within the reglementary period, CTA En
Banc received it only on December 27, 2005, as December 24 to 26, 2005 were
holidays.[25]
Addressing the second ground that the CTA En Banc used to dismiss the petition,
PNB said that its non-submission of the duplicate original or certified true
copy of the CTA Divisions decision and resolution was not intended for delay
but was mere inadvertence and unintentional, but an honest mistake, an
oversight, an unintentional omission, and a human error occasioned by too much
pressure of work.[26]
In compliance,
PNB attached to its Motion the Affidavit of Service[27]
and certified true copies of the CTA Divisions decision and resolution
supposed to be attached to its petition before the CTA En Banc.
On April 19,
2006, the CTA En Banc denied PNBs
motion for lack of merit. The CTA En Banc held that absent any cogent
explanation [to not] comply with the rules, the rules must apply to the
petitioner as they do to all.[28] The CTA En
Banc ratiocinated in this wise:
It is a jurisprudential rule that
the date [of] delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is
not to be considered as the date of filing thereof in court, and that in such
cases, the date of actual receipt by the court, and not the date of delivery to
the private carrier, is deemed the date of filing of that pleading (Benguet Electric Corporation, Inc. vs. NLRC,
209 SCRA 60-61). Clearly, the
present Petition For Review was filed four (4) days late.
The
instant Petition For Review is an appeal from the decision of the Court in
Division. Accordingly, the applicable
rule is that the fifteen-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal is
mandatory and jurisdictional in nature; that failure to file an appeal within
the reglementary period renders the assailed decision final and executory and
no longer subject to review (Armigos vs.
Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 1; Jocson vs. Baguio, 179 SCRA 550). Petitioner had thus lost its right to appeal
from the decision of this Court in Division.[29]
The CTA En Banc added:
Although
petitioner subsequently attached to its present motion, certified true copies
of the assailed Decision, dated August 11, 2005, and Resolution, dated November
15, 2005, and the Affidavit of Service, this did not stop the questioned
decision from becoming final and executory.
It has been held that strict compliance with procedural requirements in
taking an appeal cannot be substituted by good faith compliance. To rule otherwise would defeat the very
purpose of the rules of procedure, i.e., to facilitate the orderly
administration of justice (Santos vs.
Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 806, 810; Ortiz vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 712).[30]
PNB thereafter
filed a Petition for Review[31]
before this Court on June 16, 2006, which was the last day of the additional
thirty days it was granted[32]
to file such petition.
In order to
convince this Court to allow its petition, PNB posits the following arguments:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX
APPEALS EN BANC ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY PNB
IN ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH MANIFESTATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT
TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION ON DECEMBER 23, 2005 (THE DUE DATE FOR FILING
THEREOF) VIA LBC SERVICE INSTEAD OF REGISTERED MAIL WITH RETURN CARD.
II
THE PROCEDURAL LAPSE OBSERVED BY
THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN THE
INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, AS POSTULATED IN VARIOUS SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS.
III
THE PETITION FILED BY PNB BEFORE
THE CTA EN BANC RAISES A MERITORIOUS LEGAL DEFENSE WARRANTING JUDICIAL
RESOLUTION.[33]
PNB once again
narrated the circumstances leading to its counsels decision to mail its
petition for review via LBC Express, a private letter-forwarding company, instead
of registered mail. It claims that since
this Court has repeatedly pronounced the primacy of substantive justice over
technical rules, then its procedural lapses should likewise be excused,
especially since no substantial rights of the CIR are affected.
This Courts Ruling
The only issue to be resolved here is whether or
not this Court should require the CTA En
Banc to give due course to C.T.A. E.B. No. 145 despite PNBs failure to
comply with the formal requirements of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax
Appeals and the Rules of Court in filing a petition for review with the CTA En Banc.
Not having been
successfully convinced by PNB, we answer the above issue in the negative.
This Court would
like to underscore the fact that PNB failed to comply with not just one, but three procedural rules when it filed
its petition for review with the CTA En
Banc.
Petition was filed late
It is stated under
Section 3, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals that the
Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.
Thus, the manner in which petitions are filed before the CTA is also
covered by the relevant provision of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Rule 13. x x x.
x
x x x
Sec. 3. Manner of
filing. The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions,
notices, orders, judgments and all other papers shall be made by presenting the
original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such, personally to the clerk of
court or by sending them by registered
mail. In the first case, the clerk
of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of
motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the
envelope or the registry receipt, shall
be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record
of the case. (Emphases ours.)
To recall, PNB filed
its petition with the CTA En Banc
four days beyond the extended period granted to it to
file such petition. PNB argues that it
was filed on time since it was mailed on the
last day of the extended period, which was on December 23, 2005. It has been established that a pleading filed
by ordinary mail or by private messengerial service x x x is deemed filed on
the day it is actually received by the court, and not on the day it was mailed
or delivered to the messengerial service.[34] In Benguet
Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[35]
we said:
The established rule is that the
date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to
be considered as the date of filing thereof in court, and that in such cases,
the date of actual receipt by the court, and not the date of delivery to the
private carrier, is deemed the date of filing of that pleading.[36]
It is worthy to
note that PNB already asked for an additional period of 15 days within which to
file its petition for review with the CTA En
Banc. This period expired on
December 23, 2005. Knowing fully well
that December 23, 2005 not only fell on a Friday, followed by three consecutive
non-working days, but also belonged to the busiest holiday season of the year, PNB
should have exercised more prudence and foresight in filing its petition.
It is, however,
curious why PNB chose to risk the holiday traffic in an effort to personally
file its petition with the CTA En Banc,
when it already filed a copy to the other party, the CIR, via registered mail.[37] Considering the circumstances, it would have
been more logical for PNB to send its petition to the CTA En Banc on the same occasion it sent a copy to the CIR, especially
since that day was already the last day given to PNB to file its petition. Moreover, PNB offered no justification as to
why it sent its petition via ordinary mail instead of registered mail. Service by ordinary mail is allowed only in
instances where no registry service exists.[38] Rule 13, Section 7 reads:
Sec. 7. Service by mail. Service by registered mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the post office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if known, otherwise at his residence, if known, with postage fully pre-paid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (l0) days if undelivered. If no registry service is available in the locality of either the sender or the addressee, service may be done by ordinary mail. (Emphasis ours.)
Petition was not
accompanied by the
required duplicate
originals or certified
true copies of the
decision and resolution
being assailed,
and Affidavit of Service
The following provisions are instructive:
Section 2, Rule
6 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals:
SEC. 2. Petition for review; contents. The
petition for review shall contain allegations showing the jurisdiction of the
Court, a concise statement of the complete facts and a summary statement of the
issues involved in the case, as well as the reasons relied upon for the review
of the challenged decision. The petition
shall be verified and must contain a certification against forum shopping as
provided in Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. A
clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the decision
appealed from shall be attached to the petition. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 4(b), Rule 8 of the Revised
Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals:
Sec. 4(b)
An appeal from a decision or resolution of the Court in Division on a motion
for reconsideration or new trial shall be taken to the Court by petition for
review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court en
banc shall act on the appeal.
Sections 6, Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court:
Sec. 6. Contents of the petition. The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein. (Emphasis ours.)
This Court has already upheld the mandatory
character of attaching duplicate originals or certified true copies of the
assailed decision to a petition for review.[39] Moreover, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court, non-compliance with such mandatory requirement is a
sufficient ground to dismiss the petition, viz:
Sec.
7. Effect of failure to comply with
requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of
the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful
fees, the deposit for costs, proof of
service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should
accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis ours.)
Anent the
failure to attach the Affidavit of Service, Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of
Court provides:
Sec. 13. Proof of
service. Proof of personal service shall consist of a
written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or
the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date,
place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof
shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance
with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall
be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing
office. The registry return card shall
be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the
unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given
by the postmaster to the addressee.
Although the failure to attach the required affidavit of
service is not fatal if the registry receipt attached to the petition clearly
shows service to the other party, [40]
it must be remembered that this was not the only rule of procedure PNB failed
to satisfy. In Suarez v. Judge Villarama, Jr.[41]
we said:
It is an
accepted tenet that rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only
when, for persuasive and weighting reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a
litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a
liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure, however, should be an effort
on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure
to abide by the rules.[42]
This Court
agrees with the CTA En Banc that PNB
has not demonstrated any cogent reason for this Court to take an exception and
excuse PNBs blatant disregard of the basic procedural rules in a petition for
review. Furthermore, the timely
perfection of an appeal is a mandatory requirement. One cannot escape the rigid observance of
this rule by claiming oversight, or in this case, lack of foresight. Neither can it be trifled with as a mere
technicality to suit the interest of a party.
Verily, the periods for filing petitions for review and for certiorari are to be observed
religiously. Just as [the] losing party
has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the
winner have the x x x right to enjoy the finality of the decision.[43] In Air
France Philippines v. Leachon,[44]
we held:
Procedural
rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing an appellate
petition are generally inviolable. It is doctrinally entrenched that
appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege.
Hence, parties who seek to avail of the privilege must comply with the statutes
or rules allowing it. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within
the reglementary period specified in the law must, as a rule, be strictly
followed. Such requirements are
considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays, and are
necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. For sure,
the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is
not only mandatory, but jurisdictional as well. Failure to perfect an appeal renders the
judgment appealed from final and executory.[45]
While it is true that the Court may
deviate from the foregoing rule, this is true only if the appeal is meritorious
on its face. The Court has not hesitated
to relax the procedural rules in order to serve and achieve substantial
justice. In the circumstances obtaining
in this case however, the occasion does not warrant the desired relaxation.[46] PNB has not offered any meritorious legal
defense to justify the suspension of the rules in its favor. The CTA Division has taken into consideration
all of the evidence submitted by the PNB, and actually allowed it a refund of ₱1,428,661.66,
in addition to the ₱4,154,353.42 the BIR already gave. The CTA Division explained why it disallowed
the remaining balance of ₱445,578.92 in its Decision dated August 11,
2005. When PNB moved to reconsider this
decision, it did not offer the CTA any other evidence or explanation aside from
the ones the CTA Division had already evaluated. Nevertheless, the CTA carefully considered
and deliberated anew PNBs grounds, albeit they found them lacking in
merit. Thus, it cannot be said that PNB
was deprived of its day in court, as in fact, it was given all the time it had asked
for.
While PNB may
believe that it has a meritorious legal defense, this must be weighed against
the need to halt an abuse of the flexibility of procedural rules. It is well established that faithful compliance
with the Rules of Court is essential for the prevention and avoidance of
unnecessary delays and for the organized and efficient dispatch of judicial
business.[47]
WHEREFORE,
the petition is hereby DENIED for
lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMINAssociate Justice |
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rule
45 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 12-14; Ordered by Presiding
Justice Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Justices Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr.,
Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, and Olga
Palanca-Enriquez.
[3] Id.
at 8-11.
[4] Id.
at 79.
[5] Records
(CTA Division), p. 6.
[6] Id.
at 1-5.
[7] Id.
at 375-378.
[8] Rollo, p. 22.
[9] Records
(CTA Division), pp. 579-580.
[10] Id.
at 589-592.
[11] Rollo, p. 86.
[12] Id.
at 77-92; penned by Associate Justice Olga Palanca-Enriquez with Associate
Justices Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr. and Erlinda P. Uy, concurring.
[13] Id.
at 91.
[14] Id.
at 84-90.
[15] Records
(CTA Division), pp. 691-695.
[16] Rollo, pp. 93-94.
[17] Records
(CTA En Banc), pp. 7-16.
[18] An
act expanding the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), elevating its
rank to the level of a collegiate court with special jurisdiction and enlarging
its membership, amending for the purpose certain sections of Republic Act No.
1125, as amended, otherwise known as the law creating the Court of Tax Appeals,
and for other purposes.
[19] Rollo, pp. 12-14.
[20] Id.
at. 57-69.
[21] Records (CTA En
Banc), p. 60.
[22] Id.
at 47.
[23] Id.
at 61.
[24] Id.
at 62.
[25] Id.
at 48.
[26] Id.
at 48-49.
[27] Id. at 66-67.
[28] Rollo, p. 9.
[29] Id.
[30] Id.
at 10.
[31] Id.
at 18-38.
[32] Id.
at 16.
[33] Id.
at 24-25.
[34] Industrial Timber Corp. v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 111985, June 30, 1994, 233 SCRA 597, 602.
[35] G.R.
No. 89070, May 18, 1992, 209 SCRA 55.
[36] Id.
at 60-61.
[37] Records
(CTA En Banc), p. 66.
[38] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Far East
Molasses Corporation, G.R. No. 89125, July 2, 1991, 198 SCRA 689, 701.
[39] Spouses Lim v. Uni-Tan Marketing Corporation,
427 Phil. 762, 770-771 (2002).
[40] Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
v. Angara, 511 Phil. 486, 498 (2005).
[41] G.R.
No. 124512, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 74.
[42] Id. at 83-84.
[43] Cuevas v. Bais Steel Corporation, 439
Phil. 793, 805 (2002).
[44] G.R.
No. 134113, October 12, 2005, 472 SCRA 439.
[45] Id.
at 442-443.
[46] Id.
at 443.
[47] Saint Louis University v. Cordero, 478
Phil. 739 (2004).