13. Olbes v Deciembre

7/25/2019 13. Olbes v Deciembre

1/11

FACTS:

Complainants were government employees. Through respondent, Lourdes renewed a loan

application from Rodela Loans nc., in the amount of !"#,###.##. She issued and delivered $!%& 'lan( chec(s, which served as collateral for the approved loan as well as for the future

loans. Lourdes paid respondent !"),*+).+ intended to the loan plus surcharges, penalties, and

interests, for which the latter issued a receipt. %otwithstanding the full payment of the loan,respondent filled up the 'lan( chec(s entrusted to him 'y writing on those chec(s amounts that

had not 'een agreed upon at all and deposited the same chec(s which were dishonored upon

presentment 'ecause the account is already closed. Thereafter, he filed a criminal case againstcomplainants for estafa and for violation of &.!. --. Thus, complainants filed a verified petition

for the dis'arment of Atty. eciem're and charged the respondent with willful and deli'erate

acts of dishonesty, falsification and conduct un'ecoming a mem'er of the &ar.

SS/0: 1hether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Rules

".#" and +.# of the Code of !rofessional Responsi'ility.

20L: 30S.

Respondent lawyer violated Rules ".#" and +.# of the Code of !rofessionalResponsi'ility for he seriously transgressed 'y his malevolent act of filling up the 'lan( chec(s

'y indicating amounts that had not 'een agreed upon at all and despite full (nowledge that the

loan supposed to 'e secured 'y the chec(s had already 'een paid. 2is was a 'ra4en act offalsification of a commercial document, resorted to for his material gain. Respondent is clearly

guilty of serious dishonesty and professional misconduct. 2e committed an act indicative of

moral depravity not e5pected from, and highly un'ecoming a mem'er of the 'ar. 2is propensity

for employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensi'le. 2is misuse of the filled6up chec(sthat led to the detention of one petitioner is loathsome.

Respondent is here'y indefinitely S/S!0%0 from the practice of law.

Facts: Spouses Olbes (Franklin & Lourdes) were employees of the Central Post Oce in !anila" #hey $led this

case for disbarment a%ainst tty" 'eciembre" Lourdes with the help of 'eciembre acuired a loan from *odela Loans in the amount of P+,-"

Lourdes then issued . P/0 blank checks to respondent to ser1e as collateral"

Subseuently Lourdes paid 'eciembre the amount of the loan plus interest and surchar%es"

/otwithstandin% payment 'eciembre $lled up the blank checks in the amount of P.,k each" Siyempre

tumalbo% yun m%a cheke" 'eciembre then $led 0P22 & estafa cases a%ainst the Olbes spouses"

*eklamo siyempre sila Olbes" #hey are e1en sayin% that some of their ocemates su3ered the same fate

under 'eciembre" 4n1esti%atin% ocer: 'eciembre5s 1ersion of the facts is hi%hly doubtful" #here are discrepancies between

his oral and written testimonies"

4ssue: 67/ 'eciembre should face disciplinary sanctions

8eld: Siyempre9 8e is in 1iolation of *ule ",;

8e committed falsi$cation when he $lled up the blank checks e1en if this was not a%reed upon and despite

knowled%e that the loan had already been paid" 8e e1en $led 0P22 cases a%ainst the couple" #his shows the 1ileness and wretchedness of his soul"

Franklin was e1en detained for ; months because of the cases"


2/11

'eciembre is found to be lackin% %ood moral character" overnors in its Resolution %o.


3/11

Through respondent, Lourdes renewed on Buly ", "EEE her application for a loan from Rodela

Loans, nc., in the amount of !"#,###. As security for the loan, she issued and delivered to

respondent five !hilippine %ational &an( ?!%&@ 'lan( chec(s ?%os. ##)8-)"6)$@, which servedas collateral for the approved loan as well as any other loans that might 'e o'tained in the future.789

;n August ", "EEE, Lourdes paid respondent the amount of !"),*+).+ corresponding to the

loan plus surcharges, penalties and interests, for which the latter issued a receipt,7+9herein uotedas follows:

August ", "EEE

Received the amount of !"),*+).+ as payment of the loan of ! "#,###.## ta(en earlier

'y Lourdes ;l'es.

?Sgd.@ Atty.


4/11

n his Comment,7")9respondent denied petitioners claims, which he called 'aseless and devoid of

any truth and merit. Allegedly, petitioners were the ones who had deceived him 'y not honoring

their commitment regarding their Buly "$, "EEE transactions. Those transactions, totaling!-##,###, had allegedly 'een covered 'y their four !%& chec(s that were, however,

su'seuently dishonored due to ACC;/%T CL;S0. Thus, he filed criminal cases against

them. 2e claimed that the chec(s had already 'een fully filled up when petitioners signed themin his presence. 2e further claimed that he had given them the amounts of money indicated in the

chec(s, 'ecause his previous satisfactory transactions with them convinced him that they had the

capacity to pay.

=oreover, respondent said that the loans were his private and personal transactions, which werenot in any way connected with his profession as a lawyer. The criminal cases against petitioners

were allegedly private actions intended to vindicate his rights against their deception and

violation of their o'ligations. 2e maintained that his right to litigate should not 'e curtailed 'ythis administrative action.

Report of the nvestigating Commissioner

n his Report and Recommendation, Commissioner ulay recommended that respondent 'e

suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating Rule ".#" of the Code of

!rofessional Responsi'ility.

The commissioner said that respondents version of the facts was not credi'le. Commissioner

ulay rendered the following analysis and evaluation of the evidence presented:

n his affidavit6complaint 5 5 5 e5ecuted to support his complaint filed 'efore the !rovincial

!rosecution ;ffice of Ri4al respondent stated that:

-. That last Buly "$, "EEE, in the Hurisdiction of Cainta, Ri4al, 'oth L;/R0S 0. ;L&0S andFRA%L% A. ;L&0S 5 5 5, personally met and reuested me to immediately e5change with

cash, right there and then, their postdated chec(s totaling !"##,###.## then, to 'e immediately

used 'y them in their 'usiness venture.

Again in his affidavit6complaint e5ecuted to support his complaint filed with the ;ffice of the

City !rosecutor of Gue4on City respondent stated that:

-. That last Buly "$, "EEE, at around -!=, in the Hurisdiction of Gue4on City, =.=., 'oth

L;/R0S 0. ;L&0S and FRA%L% A. ;L&0S 5 5 5, personally met and reuested me to

immediately e5change with cash, right there and then, their postdated chec(s totaling!"##,###.## then, to 'e immediately used 'y them in their 'usiness venture.

The a'ove statements e5ecuted 'y respondent under oath are in direct contrast to his testimony

'efore this Commission on cross6e5amination during the =ay "-, -## hearing, thus:

ATT3 !/%IALA%: ?continuing@
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn14


5/11

G. &ased on these four ?)@ chec(s which you claimed the complainant issued to you, you filed

two separate criminal cases against them, one, in !asig City and the other in Gue4on City, is that

correctJ

A. 3es, 3our 2onor, 'ecause the chec(s were deposited at different 'an(s.

G. These four chec(s were accordingly issued to you 'y the complainants on Buly "$, "EEE, is

that correctJ

A. will consult my records, 3ou 2onor, 'ecause its uite a long time. 3es, 3our 2onor, the first

two chec(s is in the morning and the ne5t two chec(s is in the afternoon ?sic@.

C;==. /LA3:

1hich are the first two chec(sJ

ATT3. 0C0=&R0:

The first two chec(s covering chec( %os. )8-)" and )8-)- in the morning. And Chec( %o. )8-)

and )8-)) in the afternoon, 3our 2onor.

ATT3. !/%IALA%:

G. Could you recall what particular time in the morning that these two chec(s with num'er

##)8-)" and ##)8-)- 555 have 'een issued to youJ

A. could not remem'er e5actly 'ut in the middle part of the morning around E:# to "#:##.

G. This was issued to you in what particular placeJ

A. 2ere in my office at >arnet Road, ;rtigas Center, !asig City.

G. s that your houseJ

A. %o, its not my houseJ

G. 1hat is that, is that your law officeJ

A. That is my retainer client.

G. 1hat is the name of that retainer client of yoursJ

ATT3. 0C0=&R0:

3our 2onor, may o'Hect 'ecause what is the materiality of the uestionJ


6/11

ATT3. !/%IALA%:

That is very material. am trying to test your credi'ility 'ecause according to you these chec(s

have 'een issued in !asig in the place of your client on a retainer. Thats why am as(ing yourclient

C;==. /LA3:

The name of the client is not material thin(. t is enough that he said it was issued here in !asig.

1hat 'uildingJ

ATT3. 0C0=&R0:

AC Corporate Center, 3our 2onor.

C;==. /LA3:

1hat is the materiality of (nowing the name of his clients officeJ

ATT3. !/%IALA%:

&ecause, 3our 2onor, the materiality is to find out whether he is telling the truth. The place, 3our

2onor, according to the respondent is his client. %ow am as(ing who is that clientJ

C;==. /LA3:

3our answer.

ATT3. 0C0=&R0:

A. t is AC Realty Corporation at AC &uilding.

G. And the same date li(ewise, the complainants in the afternoon issued !%& Chec( %os.

##)8-) and ##)8-)), is that correctJ

A. 3es.

G. So would you want to tell this 2onora'le office that there were four chec(s issued in the place

of your client in !asig City, two in the morning and two in the afternoonJ

A. That is correct, sir.

Respondent was clearly not 'eing truthful in his narration of the transaction with the

complainants. As 'etween his version as to when the four chec(s were given, we find the story ofcomplainant7s9 more credi'le. Respondent has 'latantly distorted the truth, insofar as the place


7/11

where the transaction involving the four chec(s too( place. Such distortion on a very material

fact would seriously cast dou't on his version of the transaction with complainants.

Furthermore respondents statements as to the time when the transactions too( place are alsoo'viously and glaringly inconsistent and contradicts the written statements made 'efore the

pu'lic prosecutors. Thus further adding to the lac( of credi'ility of respondents version of thetransaction.

Complainants version that they issued 'lan( chec(s to respondent as security for the payment ofa loan of !"#,###.## plus interest, and that respondent filled up the chec(s in amounts not agreed

upon appears to 'e more credi'le. Complainants herein are mere employees of the Central !ost

;ffice in =anila who had a previous loan of !"#,###.## from respondent and which has since'een paid 5 5 5. Respondent does not deny the said transaction. This appears to 'e the only

previous transaction 'etween the parties. n fact, complainants were even late in paying the loan

when it fell due such that they had to pay interest. That respondent would trust them once more

'y giving them another !-##,###.## allegedly to 'e used for a 'usiness and immediately release

the amounts under the circumstances descri'ed 'y respondent does not appear credi'le given the'ac(ground of the previous transaction and personal circumstances of complainants. That

respondent who is a lawyer would not even 'other to as( from complainants a receipt for themoney he has given, nor 'other to verify and as( them what 'usinesses they would use the

money for contri'utes further to the lac( of credi'ility of respondents version. These

circumstances really cast dou't as to the version of respondent with regard to the transaction.The resolution of the pu'lic prosecutors notwithstanding we 'elieve respondent is clearly lac(ing

in honesty in dealing with the complainants. Complainant Fran(lin ;l'es had to 'e Hailed as a

result of respondents filing of the criminal cases. !arenthetically, we note that respondent has

also filed similar cases against the co6employees of complainants in the Central !ost ;ffice andrespondent is facing similar complaints in the &! for his actions.7"$9

The Courts Ruling

1e agree with the findings and conclusions of Commissioner ulay, as approved and adopted 'y

the &! &oard of >overnors. 2owever, the penalty should 'e more severe than what the &!recommended.

Respondents Administrative Lia'ility

=em'ership in the legal profession is a special privilege 'urdened with conditions.7"89t is

'estowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, 'ut also (nown to possess good

moral character.7"+9

A lawyer is an oath6'ound servant of society whose conduct is clearlycircumscri'ed 'y infle5i'le norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement

of the uest for truth and Hustice, for which he 7or she9 has sworn to 'e a fearless crusader.7"*9

&y ta(ing the lawyers oath, an attorney 'ecomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and anindispensa'le instrument in the fair and impartial administration of Hustice.7"E9Lawyers should

act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner 'eyond reproach, in order to

promote the pu'lics faith in the legal profession.7-#9
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn20


8/11

The Code of !rofessional Responsi'ility specifically mandates the following:

Canon ". A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, o'ey the laws of the land and promote respect

for law and legal processes.

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Canon +. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and

support the activities of the ntegrated &ar.

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Rule +.#. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice

law, nor should he, whether in pu'lic or private life, 'ehave in a scandalous manner to thediscredit of the legal profession.

A high standard of e5cellence and ethics is e5pected and reuired of mem'ers of the 'ar.7-"9Suchconduct of no'ility and uprightness should remain with them, whether in their pu'lic or in their

private lives. As officers of the courts and (eepers of the pu'lics faith, they are 'urdened with thehighest degree of social responsi'ility and are thus mandated to 'ehave at all times in a manner

consistent with truth and honor.7--9

The oath that lawyers swear to li(ewise impresses upon them the duty of e5hi'iting the highest

degree of good faith, fairness and candor in their relationships with others. The oath is a sacredtrust that must 'e upheld and (ept inviola'le at all times. Thus, lawyers may 'e disciplined for

any conduct, whether in their professional or in their private capacity, if such conduct renders

them unfit to continue to 'e officers of the court.7-9

n the present case, the &! commissioner gave credence to the story of petitioners, who said that

they had given five 'lan( personal chec(s to respondent at the Central !ost ;ffice in =anila as

security for the !"#,### loan they had contracted. Found untrue and un'elieva'le was

respondents assertion that they had filled up the chec(s and e5changed these with his cash atGue4on City and Cainta, Ri4al. After a careful review of the records, we find no reason to

deviate from these findings.

/nder the circumstances, there is no need to stretch ones imagination to arrive at an inevita'le

conclusion. Respondent does not deny the !"#,### loan o'tained from him 'y petitioners.According to Fran(lin ;l'es testimony on cross6e5amination, they as(ed respondent for the

'lan( chec(s after the loan had 'een paid. ;n the prete5t that he was not a'le to 'ring the chec(swith him,7-)9he was not a'le to return them. 2e thus committed a'omina'le dishonesty 'ya'using the confidence reposed in him 'y petitioners. t was their high regard for him as a

mem'er of the 'ar that made them trust him with their 'lan( chec(s.7-$9

t is also glaringly clear that the Code of !rofessional Responsi'ility was seriously transgressed

'y his malevolent act of filling up the 'lan( chec(s 'y indicating amounts that had not 'eenagreed upon at all and despite respondents full (nowledge that the loan supposed to 'e secured
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftn25


9/11

'y the chec(s had already 'een paid. 2is was a 'ra4en act of falsification of a commercial

document, resorted to for his material gain.

And he did not stop there. &ecause the chec(s were dishonored upon presentment, respondenthad the temerity to initiate unfounded criminal suits against petitioners, there'y e5hi'iting his

vile intent to have them punished and deprived of li'erty for frustrating the criminal duplicity hehad wanted to foist on them. As a matter of fact, one of the petitioners ?Fran(lin@ was detained

for three months7-89'ecause of the Complaints. Respondent is clearly guilty of serious dishonestyand professional misconduct. 2e committed an act indicative of moral depravity not e5pected

from, and highly un'ecoming, a mem'er of the 'ar.

>ood moral character is an essential ualification for the privilege to enter into the practice oflaw. t is eually essential to o'serve this norm meticulously during the continuance of the

practice and the e5ercise of the privilege.7-+9>ood moral character includes at least common

honesty.7-*9%o moral ualification for 'ar mem'ership is more important than truthfulness and

candor.7-E9The rigorous ethics of the profession places a premium on honesty and condemns

duplicitous 'ehavior.7#9Lawyers must 'e ministers of truth. 2ence, they must not mislead thecourt or allow it to 'e misled 'y any artifice. n all their dealings, they are e5pected to act in

good faith.7"9

eception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unaccepta'le practices that are disgracefuland dishonora'leD7-9they reveal a 'asic moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not

satisfied 'y conduct that merely ena'les one to escape the penalties of criminal laws.79

Considering the depravity of the offense committed 'y respondent, we find the penaltyrecommended 'y the &! of suspension for two years from the practice of law to 'e too mild. 2is

propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensi'le. 2is misuse of the filled6

up chec(s that led to the detention of one petitioner is loathsome.

nEustaquio v. Rimorin,7)9the forging of a special power of attorney ?S!A@ 'y the respondent toma(e it appear that he was authori4ed to sell anothers property, as well as his fraudulent and

malicious inducement of Alicia Ru'is to sign a =emorandum of Agreement to give a sem'lance

of legality to the S!A, were sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law for five years.

2ere, the conduct of herein respondent is even worse. 2e used falsified chec(s as 'ases formaliciously indicting petitioners and there'y caused the detention of one of them.

WHEREFORE, Atty.


10/11

avide, Br., C.B., !uno, Guisum'ing, 3nares6Santiago, Sandoval6>utierre4, Carpio, Austria6

=artine4, Corona, Carpio6=orales, CalleHo, Sr., A4cuna, Tinga, Chico6%a4ario, and >arcia, BB.,

concur.

7"9Rollo, pp. "6"#.

7-9Id., pp. $868".

79Records,


11/11

7"*9Re% dministrative "ase No. && o' t$e R(", )r. I*, (a#bilaran "it!, #ainst tt!. Samuel ".

+cceaD * SCRA 88, 8*, Buly , -##-, per curiam.

7"E9)usios v. tt!. Rica'ort, )+ !hil. 8*+, ecem'er --, "EE+.

7-#9Malecdan v. Peas, )-" SCRA +, Banuary -8, -##)DRivera v. "orral, *) SCRA ", Buly ),-##-DNapil v. *aldes, -*8 SCRA +$*, =arch ), "EE*.

7-"9Sanc$e- v. Somoso, )"- SCRA $8E, ;cto'er , -##DLao v. Medel,)#$ SCRA --+, Buly ",

-##DEustaquio v. Rimorin, EE SCRA )--, =arch -), -##.

7--9Sanc$e- v. Somoso, supra Saba!le v. (anda!a#, "$* SCRA )E+, =arch *, "E**.

7-9/arcia v. Manuel,E$ SCRA *8, Banuary -#, -##.

7-)9TS%, =ay -#, -##-, pp. 8$688.

7-$9TS%, Fe'ruary ), -##-, p. "*.

7-89TS%, Fe'ruary ), -##-, pp. ))6)$.

7-+9*da. de Espino v. Presquito, )- SCRA 8#E, Bune -*, -##)DRural )an o' Sila!, Inc. v. Pilla,

$# SCRA "*, Banuary -), -##"DRa!os0+mbac v. Ra!os, )E !hil. *, Banuary -*, "EE*D*illanueva v. Sta. na, "$ !hil. +E$, Buly "", "EE$.

7-*9(an v. Sabandal, -#8 SCRA )+, Fe'ruary -), "EE-.

7-E9"onstantino v. Saludares, --* SCRA -, ecem'er +, "EED (an v. Sabandal, -#8 SCRA)+, Fe'ruary -), "EE-.

7#9"ustodio Sr. v. Esto, *" SCRA $"+, Fe'ruary --, "E+*.

7"9Article "E. 0very person must in the e5ercise of his rights and in the performance of hisduties, act with Hustice, give everyone his due, and o'serve honesty and good faith. %ew Civil

Code.

7-9Sebastian v. tt!. "alis, +- !hil. 8+, Septem'er E, "EEE.

79Saba!le v. (anda!a#,supracitingIn re Del Rosario, $- !hil. EE, "E-*.

7)9EE SCRA )--, =arch -), -##.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/ac_2841.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/ac_2841.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/ac_2841.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/ac_5830.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/ac_5830.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/ac_3548.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar%201998/ac_2040.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/ac_6061.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/ac_6061.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5916.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5916.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5081.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/ac_5811.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/ac_5811.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/ac_5811.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/ac_3637.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/ac_2841.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/ac_2841.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/ac_5830.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/ac_3548.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar%201998/ac_2040.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/ac_6061.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5916.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5081.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/ac_5811.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/ac_3637.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_5365.htm#_ftnref34

Documents

13. Olbes v Deciembre