|
HEIRS OF AGAPITO
T. OLARTE AND ANGELA A. OLARTE, NAMELY NORMA OLARTE-DINEROS, ARMANDO A.
OLARTE, YOLANDA OLARTE-MONTECER and RENATO A. OLARTE, Petitioners, |
G.R. No. 177995
Present: Carpio
Morales, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA,
JR., and SERENO, JJ. |
|
- versus - |
|
|
OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA), MARIANO M.
PINEDA, AS GENERAL MANAGER, THE MANAGER, DISTRICT I, NCR, EDUARDO TIMBANG and
DEMETRIO OCAMPO, Respondents. |
Promulgated: June
15, 2011 |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
Before
us is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the February 23,
2007 Decision[1] and
May 22, 2007 Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 79163 which dismissed petitioners
petition for certiorari.
Subject
of the instant case is a parcel of land denominated as
Petitioners,
siblings Armando Olarte, Norma Olarte-Dineros, Yolanda Olarte-Montecer and
Renato A. Olarte, claim that their parents, the late Agapito and Angela Olarte,
started occupying the subject property in 1943 by virtue of a lease contract
with the PNR and constructed thereon a two-storey residential house. Petitioners
further allege that they were born and raised during their parents occupancy of
the subject property.
On
Certificate of Priority
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that Agapito
Olarte, Filipino, of legal age, single/married to Angela A. Olarte, has since
1945 continuously occupied a portion of Lot No. Parcel -7 situated in the
City/Municipality of Singg., Malate,
The right acquired hereunder is non-transferable and any transfer thereof shall be null and void.
Given under my hand at
DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL
PRESIDENT OF THE
BY AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT:
(Sgd.)
RODOLFO P. HIZON
CHAIRMAN-GENERAL MANAGER[3]
Agapito
and Angela thereafter passed away in 1981 and 1984, respectively. Petitioner
Norma Olarte-Dineros was then designated as administratrix of the residential
house and the subject parcel of land.
In 1985, the two-storey
residential house was declared in the name of Agapito for taxation purposes.[4] In the same year, petitioners leased out a
portion of the residential house to respondents Eduardo Timbang and Demetrio
Ocampo.
Thereafter,
Yolanda left for
In 1987, the
NHA conducted a Census Tagging Operation in the area where the subject property
is located.
In 1988, Ocampo
was judicially ejected from the premises by petitioners for nonpayment of
rentals. On
What
transpired thereafter is not extant from the records, but it appears that on
Sirs/Mesdames:
This has reference to your conflict
of claims over
Records show that:
1. Structure with Tag No. 497 was censused as owned by Norma Olarte[-]Dineros, an absentee structure owner. Said structure was rented out to the following:
a. A certain Mr. Ilagan who has left the premises with no forwarding address.
b. Eduardo Timbang who is still residing in the said structure.
c. Demetrio Ocampo who was judicially ejected and left the rented unit in 1993.
2. The present occupants of the structure are:
a. Norma Olarte who is the censused absentee structure owner.
b. Eduardo Timbang who is a censused renter.
c.
Armando
Olarte brother of Norma Olarte who occupied the portion vacated by Mr. Ilagan
in 1988 one year after the official closure of the census tagging operation
[of] the project.
d.
Yolanda
Olarte Montecer, sister of Norma Olarte who occupied in 1994 [a] portion
vacated by Demetrio Ocampo.
4. The District Office recommended that the subject lot be awarded in favor of Armando Olarte and Eduardo Timbang per area of actual occupancy and that Demetrio Ocampo be qualified to apply for a generated lot or buy a structure within the project site.
After judicious review and evaluation of the records of the case, we found that:
1. Eduardo Timbang and Demetrio
Ocampo are the only qualified beneficiaries of the subject lot for having been
censused as renters therein. Norma Olarte[-]Dineros, Armando Olarte, and
Yolanda Olarte Montecer, are all disqualified for not being census residents
within the project site.
2. The decision of the court with regards to the ejectment case filed against Demetrio Ocampo treated only the possessory rights over the structure but not the determination of who is the rightful awardee/beneficiary of the lot.
3. The Court of Appeals as affirmed by the Supreme Court declared:
until they (Olartes) are refunded the necessary and useful expenses for the residential house, they have a right to retain possession of it.
In other words, the Olartes can only be entitled to reimbursement of their lawful expenses for the construction of the existing structure built on the controverted lot.
4. The departure of Demetrio Ocampo from
the contested structure was not voluntary. He has no intention of leaving the
premises were it not to the adverse decision of the court in which case he has
no other recourse but to reside even outside the project area. In short, he
cannot be punished for his involuntary act of looking shelter outside the
project area.
In view of the foregoing, you are advised that:
1. Eduardo Timbang and Demetrio Ocampo are to
negotiate with Norma Olarte-Dineros for the voluntary sale of the structure of
Ms. Dineros or voluntarily dismantle the same, in case of failure of
negotiations within sixty (60) days upon receipt hereof; otherwise, this
Authority shall cause the dismantling of the said structure.
2. Mr.
Armando Olarte is not qualified for lot award as he was not included in the census or is not a bonafide resident as defined in the code of policies as he
occupied the structure one year after the
official closure of tagging operation in the project
site.
3. Lot 12, Block 2, Tramo-Singalong ZIP Project
is hereby awarded to Eduardo Timbang and Demetrio Ocampo in equal share.
4. This
resolution is FINAL. Should the
aggrieved parties opt to appeal, they have thirty (30) days from receipt
hereof within which to file an appeal with the Office of the President,
pursuant to Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987.
Very Truly yours,
(Sgd)
MARCIANO M. PINEDA
General Manager[7]
(Emphasis supplied.)
The
April 30, 1997 Resolution was received by petitioners on
Twenty-six (26)
days later, or on
I.
THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA) COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY IN RESOLVING THAT EDUARDO TIMBANG AND DEMETRIO OCAMPO ARE THE ONLY QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES OF THE SUBJECT LOT FOR HAVING BEEN CENSUSED AS RENTERS OF THE LOT; AND IN AWARDING TO THEM LOT 12, BLOCK 2, TRAMO-SINGALONG ZIP PROJECT IN EQUAL SHARE.
II.
THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA), THE HONORABLE MARCIANO M. PINEDA, COMMITTED A SERIOUS [AND] REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RESOLVING FURTHER THAT NORMA OLARTE[-]DINEROS, ARMANDO OLARTE AND YOLANDA OLARTE MONTECER ARE ALL DISQUALIFIED FOR NOT BEING CENSUS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE AND THAT THE OLARTES CAN ONLY BE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THEIR LAWFUL EXPENSES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BUILT ON THE LOT.
III.
THAT THERE WAS A SERIOUS IRREGULARITY AND CORRUPTION IN THE CENSUS TAGGING OPERATIONS DELIBERATELY DESIGNED TO FAVOR THE RENTERS EDUARDO TIMBANG AND DEMETRIO OCAMPO AND TO DISQUALIFY THE PETITIONERS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY AND THEIR PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST HAVE BEEN IN CONTINUOUS, OPEN AND UNINTERRUPTED POSSESSION AND OCCUPANCY OF THE SAID LOT 12, BLOCK 2, TRAMO-SINGALONG ZIP PROJECT SINCE 1943 AND WERE EARLIER GIVEN PRIORITY RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE THE SAID PROPERTY.
IV.
THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THEY ARE ABOUT TO LOSE THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH IS THE ONLY PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THE RIGHTS TO LOT 12, BLOCK 2, TRAMO-SINGALONG ZIP PROJECT WHERE ALL OF THEM WERE BORN AND HAVE GROWN UP, WHICH THE PETITIONERS INHERITED FROM THEIR PARENTS, HENCE, SAID RESOLUTION IS NULL AND VOID.[8]
On
The OP
cited Section 2[10]
of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1344[11]
which provides that an appeal from the decision of the NHA should be made
within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision and that if an appeal was
made and said decision is not reversed and/or amended within a period of thirty
(30) days, the decision is deemed affirmed. The OP held that since more than thirty
(30) days had lapsed since the appeal became ripe for decision and there was no
reversal or amendment of the appealed ruling, the questioned award of the NHA
is deemed affirmed. The OP further ruled that the appeal was filed out of time,
noting that it took petitioners twenty-six (26) days to file it.
The OP
further ruled that findings of fact of administrative bodies will not be
interfered with, in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion or unless the
findings are not supported by substantial evidence. It held that petitioners
failed to prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NHA and that the
records show that the assailed ruling is supported by substantial evidence.
Petitioners
moved to reconsider the November 29, 2002 Resolution of the OP arguing that petitioners
rightly relied on the statement of the NHA regarding the period for filing the
appeal because the NHA was the entity specifically charged with deciding the parties
rights and obligations to the subject land.
They contend that there was no bad faith or any intention on their part
to delay the disposition of the case; hence, the OP should have relaxed the
rules on the matter of perfection of appeals. They likewise claim that the
delay is not unreasonable since it was precipitated by a mistake of the NHA
itself. Petitioners add that there was
grave abuse of discretion on the NHAs part for completely disregarding the
facts as laid down by petitioners, and for relying on its census tagging to
favor respondents Timbang and Ocampo.
By Resolution[12]
dated
Thus, on
In a Resolution[13]
dated September 19, 2003, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari outright
on the grounds that the certification of non-forum shopping was signed by only
two of the four petitioners and that they erroneously availed of the remedy of
certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an appeal under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, as amended. Petitioners moved to reconsider the
dismissal of their petition, but the same was denied by the CA in a Resolution[14]
dated
The case was thereafter
elevated to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as
G.R. No. 165821.
On
Upon
remand, however, the CA again dismissed the petition sustaining the OPs
ruling.
Thus,
petitioners again brought this case before this Court, raising the following
arguments:
I. THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY SETTLED THE ISSUE OF WHO IS THE LAWFUL POSSESSOR OF THE DISPUTED LAND.
THE CERTIFICATE
OF PRIORITY IS [A] RECOGNITION BY THE STATE OF
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE MERE LESSEES OF PETITIONERS.
II. PETITIONERS WERE DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT WHICH EARLIER DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONERS FOR HAVING BEEN FILED OUT OF TIME.
THE HONORABLE COURT HAS ALREADY RULED THAT A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES MUST BE ACCORDED THE PETITIONERS SINCE IT IS THEIR FAMILY HOME THAT IS AT STAKE.[16]
Petitioners
argue that the issue of prior possession has already been passed upon and
settled by this Court in its Decision dated
Petitioners
likewise argue that they were deprived due process of law as the tagging operations
were conducted without prior notice to the owners or lawful occupants of the
area. At the time of the tagging operations, petitioners Armando and Renato were
in possession thereof. This, however, was conveniently ignored by the NHA when
it concluded that Armando is not qualified for a lot award and is not a bona fide
resident. Worse, petitioners contend
that they were never informed nor given the opportunity to present or adduce evidence
of their continued occupancy of the subject property by themselves and through
their predecessors in interest. The NHA simply relied on the tagging operations.
Petitioners
also submit that the CA, in affirming the OPs decision, effectively denied them
the opportunity to present completely their meritorious case on appeal. They point out that it is the NHA resolution
itself which provided for a thirty (30)-day appeal period and petitioners, in
their honest belief that they were granted said amount of time within which to
file their appeal, cannot be faulted for having filed the appeal beyond the
reglementary period mandated in P.D. No. 1344. They argue that while the
government is usually not estopped by the mistake or error of its officials or
agents, the rule does not afford a blanket or absolute immunity.
Petitioners
further contend that this Court has already ruled that a liberal interpretation
of the rules must be accorded them since it is their family home that is at
stake.
The Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG), for the NHA, on the other hand argues that though
petitioners blame the NHA for their belated filing of the appeal when its
resolution granted them a period of thirty (30) days within which to appeal to
the OP, such does not change the fact that their appeal was filed beyond the
reglementary period. The OSG submits that the OP aptly held that the error of
the NHA, which did not take into account Section 2 of P.D. No.
1344 providing for the fifteen (15)-day period to appeal, cannot be invoked
as a ground for estoppel. Also, petitioners have no one to blame but themselves
for the belated filing of their appeal as ignorance of the law excuses no one
from compliance therewith.
The OSG
likewise argues that a perusal of the records of the case would show that
petitioners need not present evidence to establish their possession because although
they allege to be owners, they are nonetheless disqualified from being
beneficiaries of the land. As to Armando, even though he actually occupied the
property, he did so one year after the official closure of the census tagging
operation. As to Norma and Yolanda, they are disqualified for not being census
residents.
The OSG also
contends that the Certificate of Priority cannot be considered title to the property.
In fact, petitioners could be deemed to
have abandoned whatever right they may have over the property by virtue of the
Certificate of Priority when they stopped residing on the property as they were
found by NHA as not census residents within the project area. Clearly therefore, there was basis for the NHA
for holding Timbang and Ocampo as eligible beneficiaries.
Essentially, the
issues to be resolved in the instant case are: (1) Should petitioners be blamed
for filing their appeal late because they relied on the erroneous pronouncement
in the NHA resolution that they have thirty (30) days to file it instead of fifteen
(15) days as mandated by law? and (2) Are petitioners disqualified to be
awardees for
As to the
first issue, we answer in the negative.
Time and
again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a
part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only
in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who
seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules,
failing in which the right to appeal is lost.[17]
In the
instant case, the proximate cause of petitioners failure to comply with the
rules, specifically that pertaining to the period within which to appeal, is
the pronouncement in the appealed resolution itself that they have thirty (30)
days contrary to what is prescribed in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1344, the
applicable law in the case. We agree with petitioners that they cannot be
blamed for honestly believing that they indeed had thirty (30) days considering
it was the NHA itself which said so. Being the agency tasked to implement P.D. No.
1344, it is but plausible for petitioners to assume that what the NHA
pronounced is the correct period within which they can file their appeal.
However, as
to the second issue, we rule in the affirmative.
The Zonal Improvement Project or ZIP was
adopted to strengthen further the efforts of the government to uplift the
living conditions in the slums and blighted areas[18]
in line with the spirit of the constitutional provision guaranteeing housing
and a decent quality of life for every Filipino.[19]
The ownership of land by the landless is the primary objective of the ZIP.[20]
The Code of Policies embodied in NHA Circular
No. 13 governed the implementation of the ZIP as to the classification and
treatment of existing structures, the selection and qualification of intended
beneficiaries, the disposition and award of fully developed lots in all ZIP
zones within Metro Manila, and other related activities.[21]
In the Declaration of Policy, it provides that the tagging of structures and
the census of occupants shall be the primary basis for determining
beneficiaries within ZIP Project sites.[22] Paragraph
V, on the other hand, lays down the rules on beneficiary selection and lot
allocation:
V. BENEFICIARY SELECTION AND
1. The official ZIP census and tagging shall be
the primary basis for determining potential program beneficiaries and
structures or dwelling units in the project area.
2. Issuance of ZIP tag number in no way
constitutes a guarantee for ZIP lot allocation.
3. Absentee censused households and all
uncensused households are automatically disqualified from lot allocation.
4. Only those households included in the ZIP
census and who, in addition, qualify under the provisions of the Code of
Policies, are the beneficiaries of the Zonal Improvement Program.
5. A qualified censused-household is entitled
to only one residential lot within the ZIP project areas of Metro Manila.
6. Documentation supporting lot allocation
shall be made in the name of the qualified household head.
7. An Awards and Arbitration Committee (AAC)
shall be set up in each ZIP project area to be composed of representative each
from the Authority, the local government, the barangay and the community. The
AAC shall determine lot allocation amongst qualified beneficiaries, arbitrate
in matters of claims and disputes, and safeguard the rights of all residents in
ZIP project areas by any legal means it may consider appropriate. All decisions of the AAC shall be subject to
review and approval of the General Manager of the Authority, the local Mayors,
and finally the Governor of the Metropolitan Manila Commission.[23]
The declaration of policy in the
Code of Policies stated that an absentee or uncensused structure owner was
disqualified from owning a lot within the ZIP zones.[24]
The Code of Policies shows the following
persons to be automatically disqualified as beneficiaries of the project,
namely:
(1) Absentee censused
household censused household that vacates a duly
tagged structure or dwelling unit and leaves the project area for a continuous
period for at least six months without written notice to the NHA and the local
government unit;
(2) Uncensused household household that is not registered in the official ZIP
census;
(3) Absentee structure owner any
individual who owns a structure or dwelling unit in a ZIP project area and who
has not occupied it prior to the official closure of the Census; and
(4) Uncensused
structure owner any
person who owns a structure or dwelling unit not registered in the official ZIP
census.[25] (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, in the award of the ZIP lot allocation, the primary
bases for determining the potential program beneficiaries and structures or
dwelling units in the project area were the official ZIP census and tagging
conducted. It was, therefore, the
primordial requisite that the intended beneficiary must be the occupant of
the tagged structure at the time of the official ZIP census or at the closure
thereof. Otherwise, the person was considered an absentee structure owner
for being absent from his usual residence or domicile.[26]
Here, at the
time of the official ZIP census, the NHA found that Norma was an absentee
structure owner and it was not petitioners but respondents Timbang and Ocampo
and a certain Mr. Ilagan who were occupying the subject property. Armando on
the other hand occupied the portion vacated by Mr. Ilagan in 1988 one year after
the official closure of the census tagging operation while Yolanda occupied a
portion vacated by Demetrio Ocampo in 1994 after the latter was judicially
evicted in 1993. Though there was no mention as to Renato, petitioners in their
pleadings admit that he was working in Novaliches and would only go to the
subject property during weekends. Petitioners however dispute the NHA and
census findings and allege that Armando and Renato never left the subject
property, but we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the NHA.
It
is settled that the Court is not a trier of facts and accords great weight to
the factual findings of lower courts or agencies whose function is to resolve
factual matters. It is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again.
Moreover, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial
bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but finality when
affirmed by the CA,[27]
as in the case at bar.
Evidently,
all petitioners cannot qualify as beneficiaries because they were not the
occupants of the subject property at the time of the census. They were living
elsewhere at that crucial time. Undeniably, they were primarily using the
subject property as a source of income by renting it out to third persons and
not as their abode. Petitioners thus are
not homeless persons which the ZIP intended to benefit. That petitioners were
the descendants of the persons who built the residential house does not mean
that the lot on which it stood would automatically be awarded to them.
Petitioners cannot
anchor their rights on the Certificate of Priority awarded to their parents. As
correctly argued by the OSG, petitioners
are deemed to have abandoned whatever right they may have over the property by
virtue of the Certificate of Priority, when they chose not to reside on the
subject property and found by NHA as not census residents within the project
area.
Neither can petitioners
rely on this Courts final judgment sustaining Ocampos ejectment from the
subject property. The only issue for resolution in an ejectment case is
physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any
claim of ownership by any of the party litigants. An ejectment case is designed
to restore, through summary proceedings, the physical possession of any land or
building to one who has been illegally deprived of such possession, without
prejudice to the settlement of the parties opposing claims of juridical
possession in appropriate proceedings. Any ruling on the question of ownership is
only provisional and made for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled
to possession de facto.[28]
Certainly, a judgment in an ejectment
case could only resolve the question as to who has a better right to possess
the subject property but definitely, it could not conclusively determine
whether petitioners are entitled to the award under the ZIP or ascertain if
respondents are disqualified beneficiaries.[29]
We likewise disagree
with petitioners argument that they were deprived due process since they were
not notified of the census tagging operations in their area. It cannot be said
that the census was conducted for one day only that petitioners could have just
missed their opportunity to be considered as censused occupants. If in fact
they actually live on the subject property and are really occupants thereof, there
is no way that they will not be aware of the census tagging operations since
all residents in the area were subjected to it.
The fact that they allegedly knew nothing of the census tagging
operations all the more bolsters the NHAs finding that petitioners are mere
absentee structure owners and not occupants of the subject property.
Similarly
without merit is petitioners contention that they were deprived of due process
of law. If petitioners were not able to
present evidence to substantiate their claim, they only have themselves to
blame and not the NHA or the Office of the President whom they believed to have
ignored their claims and contentions. Nothing in the records show that
petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the Awards and Arbitration Committee
(AAC) that was set up in their area to determine lot allocation amongst
qualified beneficiaries, arbitrate in matters of claims and disputes, and
safeguard the rights of all residents in the ZIP project area.[30]
If at the first instance, they already
went to the AAC, they could have easily proven their claims since it includes
members from the barangay and the community who know them and could attest that
they are indeed actual residents of the subject property. Petitioners, however,
failed to avail of this remedy.
In
sum, while this Court finds that petitioners appeal to the OP should be
considered timely filed, we find the same to be without merit.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on
certiorari is DENIED.
With costs
against the petitioners.
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 Courts
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
Chairpersons 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 Courts Division.
|
|
RENATO
C. CORONA Chief Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 67-77. Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] See Heirs
of Agapito T. Olarte v. Office of the President of the
[7] Rollo, pp. 108-110.
[8] OP records, pp. 106-107.
[9]
[10]
Section 2. The decision of the National Housing Authority shall
become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the date of its receipt. It is
appealable only to the President of the
[11]
Empowering the National Housing Authority to Issue
Writ of Execution in the Enforcement of its Decision Under Presidential Decree
No. 957 dated
[12] OP records, pp. 185-186.
[13]
[14] CA rollo, p. 161.
[15]
[16] Rollo, pp. 48-58.
[17] Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126620, April 17, 2002, 381 SCRA 185, 197.
[18] Paragraph I, NHA Circular No. 13 dated
[19] Paragraph III (1), id.
[20] Paragraph III (4), id.
[21] Paragraph II, id.
[23] Paragraph V, id.
[24] Paragraph III (5), id.
[25] Blas
v. Galapon, G.R. No. 159710,
[26]
[27] Ortega
v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. 176150,
[28] Keppel
Bank Philippines, Inc. v. Adao, G.R. No.
158227,
[29] See Blas v. Galapon, supra note 25 at 383.
[30] Paragraph V (7), NHA Circular No. 13 dated