8/30/2016 G.R.No.

174077

TodayisTuesday,August30,2016

Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.174077November21,2012

ELLICE AGROINDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, represented by its Chairman of the Board of Directors and
President,RAULE.GALA,Petitioner,
vs.
RODELT.YOUNG,DELFINCHAN,JIMWEE,andGUIAG.DOMINGO,***Respondents.

DECISION

MENDOZA,J.:

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the July 1, 2003
Decision1andtheAugust8,2006Resolution2oftheCourtofAppeals(CA),inCAG.R.SPNo.64421,dismissing
thepetitionandupholdingtheNovember11,1999DecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofLucenaCity,Branch60
(RTC), in Civil Case No. 96177, entitled "Rodel T. Young, Delfin Chan and Jim Wee v. Ellice Agro Industrial
Corporation,representedbyGuiaG.Domingo."

TheFacts

OnJuly24,1995,RodelT.Young,DelfinChanandJimWee(respondents)andElliceAgroIndustrialCorporation
(EAIC),representedbyitsallegedcorporatesecretaryandattorneyinfact,GuiaG.Domingo(Domingo),entered
into a Contract to Sell, under certain terms and conditions, wherein EAIC agreed to sell to the respondents a
30,000squaremeterportionofaparceloflandlocatedinLutucan,Sariaya,QuezonandregisteredunderEAICs
name and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T157038 in consideration of One Million and Fifty
Thousand(P1,050,000.00)Pesos.

Pursuant to the Contract to Sell,3 respondents paid EAIC, through Domingo, the aggregate amount of Five
HundredFortyFiveThousand(P545,000.00)Pesosaspartialpaymentfortheacquisitionofthesubjectproperty.
Despitesuchpayment,EAICfailedtodelivertorespondentstheownersduplicatecertificateoftitleofthesubject
propertyandthecorrespondingdeedofsaleasrequiredundertheContracttoSell.

On November 8, 1996, prompted by the failure of EAIC to comply with its obligation, respondents had their
AffidavitofAdverseClaimannotatedinTCTNo.T157038.4

OnNovember14,1996,respondentsfiledaComplaint5forspecificperformance,docketedasCivilCaseNo.96
177,againstEAICandDomingobeforetheRTC.

Consequently,onNovember18,1996,respondentscausedtheannotationofaNoticeofLisPendensinvolving
CivilCaseNo.96177inTCTNo.T157038.6

TheinitialattempttoservethesummonsandacopyofthecomplaintanditsannexesonEAIC,throughDomingo,
onRizalStreet,Sariaya,Quezon,wasunsuccessfulasEAICcouldnotbelocatedinthesaidaddress.

AnotherattemptwasmadetoservethealiassummonsonEAICat996MaligayaStreet,Singalong,Manila,the
residenceofDomingo.ThesecondattempttoservethealiassummonstoDomingowas,thistime,successful.

OnMarch21,1997,EAIC,representedbyDomingo,fileditsAnswerwithCounterclaim.7

Meanwhile,respondentJimWee(Wee)sentRaulE.Gala(Gala),EAICsChairmanandPresident,aletter,8dated
July9,1997,seekingaconferencewiththelatterrelatingtotheexecutionofanabsolutedeedofsalepursuantto
theContracttoSellenteredintobetweenEAICandrespondents.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_174077_2012.html 1/7
8/30/2016 G.R.No.174077

Inresponse,theRoblesRicafrenteAguirreSanvicente&CachoLawFirm,introducingitselftobethecounselof
EAIC,sentWeealetter,9datedJuly18,1997,informinghimofDomingoslackofauthoritytorepresentEAIC.

On the scheduled pretrial conference on January 27, 1998, neither Domingo nor her counsel appeared. As a
resultofEAICsfailuretoappearinthepretrialconference,respondentswereallowedtopresenttheirevidence
exparte,pursuanttoSection5,Rule1810oftheRulesofCourt.

Following the presentation of evidence ex parte, the RTC rendered its November 11, 1999 Decision ordering
EAICtodelivertheownersduplicatecopyofTCTNo.T157038andtoexecuteafinaldeedofsaleinfavorof
respondents.

NomotionforreconsiderationornoticeofappealwasfiledbyEAIC,hence,thesaidRTCdecisionbecamefinal
andexecutoryonDecember8,1999.11

OnJuly10,2000(roughlysevenmonthsafterthefinalityoftheRTCDecision),EAIC,representedbyGala,filed
its Petition for Relief from Judgment12 under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court of the November 11, 1999 RTC
Decision before the same court. The petition for relief from judgment was premised on the alleged fraud
committedbyDomingoinconcealingtheexistenceofboththeContracttoSellandCivilCaseNo.96177from
EAIC.

InitsJuly12,2000Order,13theRTCdeniedthepetitionforrelieffromjudgmentforbeingclearlyfiledoutoftime
underSection3,Rule38oftheRulesofCourt.14

OnApril24,2001,EAIC,representedbyGala,initiatedthePetitionforAnnulmentofJudgment15underRule47
oftheRulesofCourtoftheNovember11,1999RTCDecisionbeforetheCA.Thepetitionwasgroundedonthe
RTCs lack of jurisdiction over EAIC and the extrinsic fraud committed by Domingo. EAIC discarded any
knowledgeofthesaidsaleandthesuitfiledbyrespondentsagainstit.AccordingtoEAIC,itcouldnotbebound
by the assailed RTC Decision pursuant to Section 13, Rule 1416 of the 1964 Rules of Court which was, the
applicablerulethen.DomingowasnotitsPresident,Manager,Secretary,Cashier,AgentorDirector,asevidenced
by the General Information Sheets17 (GIS) it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), at the
timethesummonswasserveduponherandshedidnotpossesstherequisiteauthorizationtorepresentEAICin
the subject transaction. Furthermore, her misrepresentation that she was EAICs corporate secretary who was
properlyauthorizedtosellandreceivepaymentforthesubjectproperty,defraudedEAICofthepotentialgainsit
shouldhaverealizedfromtheproceedsofthesale.

IntheirAnswerwithCounterclaim18filedbeforetheCA,respondentscounteredthatconsideringEAICspetition
forrelieffromjudgmentunderRule38groundedonextrinsicfraud,hadalreadybeenrejectedwithfinality,EAIC
couldnotbepermittedtoinvokethesamegroundinapetitionforannulmentofjudgmentunderRule47.Further,
EAICcouldnotfeignignoranceofCivilCaseNo.96177becauseoftheNovember8,1996AdverseClaimand
theNovember18,1996NoticeofLisPendensannotatedatthebackofTCTNo.T157038.Respondentsinsisted
thatthementionedannotationsinTCTNo.T157038shouldbedeemedconstructivenoticestotheworldofthe
pending litigation referred to therein and, therefore, bound EAIC to Civil Case No. 96177. Moreover, with the
exchangeofletters,datedJuly9,199719andJuly18,1997,20betweenWeeandEAIC,throughGala,EAICwas
informedofthependingcivilcaseagainstit.

In its Reply21 filed before the CA, EAIC explained that the RTC did not touch upon the issue of fraud in the
petitionforrelieffromjudgmentasitwasdismissedforbeingfiledoutoftime.Inaddition,EAICclaimedthatthe
exchangeoflettersbetweenWeeandEAICneverstatedanythingwhatsoeverofanypendingsuitbetweenthem.

In its July 1, 2003 Decision, the CA dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment. In its decision, the CA
ratiocinated:

xxxx.

Thecorporation,attheinceptionofCivilCaseNo.96177onNovember14,1996,alreadyhadconstructivenotice
ofthethree(3)businessmenshereinrespondentsadverseclaimtoa30,000

squaremeter portion of the land covered by TCT No. T157038 because this claim was duly registered and
annotatedonthesaidtitleevenbeforethisdate.Moreover,four(4)daysaftertheinceptionofthecivilcase,room
wasprovidedforonthesametitlefortheannotationofanoticeoflispendens.

TheseconstructivenoticesoughttohavespurredthecorporationintoactionbyfilingananswerinCivilCaseNo.
96177throughproperorlegitimaterepresentations,forinstance.Butthecorporationchosetokeepquiet,thus,
makingthetrialcourtandeveryoneelseconcernedwithsaidcivilcasebelievethatGuiaG.Domingoisitsproper
or legitimate representative. It even appears that she was, after all, a proper or legitimate representative of the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_174077_2012.html 2/7
8/30/2016 G.R.No.174077

corporationbecauseinthedecision,datedNovember3,1998,renderedinSECCasesNos.3747and4027,the
corporationsboardheadedbyRaulE.GalasinceAugust24,1990washeldtobeillegitimate.

Even without the constructive notices, the businessmen herein respondents, through a letter signed by one of
them,apprisedthecorporation,throughRaulE.Gala,oftheircontracttosell.ThiswasinJuly,1997.Theletter
wasdulyacknowledgedandthepartiesthereaftereventriedtosettleamongthemselvestheconsiderationand
conveyanceofthe30,000squaremeterportion.

When this failed, there was no reason why the corporation could not have proceeded with the pretrial in Civil
CaseNo.96177.Itdidnot.

Thecorporationsreticenceinviewoftheconstructivenoticesanditsthenincumbentboardspersonalknowledge
ofthecasehad,ineffect,amountedtoawaiverofitsrighttoactivelyparticipateintheproperdispositionofCivil
Case No. 96177, to move for a new trial therein and to appeal from the decision rendered therein. Certainly,
theseremediesnolongerareavailable,butonlythecorporationshouldbefaultedforthis.

Bethatasitmay,thecorporationhadavailedoftheremedyofrelieffromthejudgmentinCivilCaseNo.96177.
Thefactthatitwasnotabletoprovethatitwasentitledtheretodoesnotmeanthatitcannowavailoftheinstant
remedy.

Itwouldservenousefulpurposethentodelveintotheissuesofjurisdictionandfraudraisedinthepetitionasthe
petitionitselfisunavailingunderthecircumstances.

xxxx.

EAICsmotionforreconsiderationwasdeniedbytheCAinitsResolution,datedAugust8,2006.

Hence,thispetitionforreview.

TheIssues

NotinconformitywiththerulingoftheCA,EAICseeksrelieffromthisCourtraisingthefollowingerrors:

THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINRULINGTHATTHEREWASVALIDSERVICEOFSUMMONSUPON
PETITIONERCORPORATION.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT GUIA G. DOMINGO WAS A DIRECTOR OF
PETITIONER CORPORATION AT THE TIME SUMMONS WAS SERVED UPON HER AND IN DENYING
PETITIONERSMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATION.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER CAN NO LONGER AVAIL OF THE
PRESENTPETITIONHAVINGEARLIERFILEDAPETITIONFORRELIEFFROMJUDGMENT.22

ThemainissuefortheCourtsconsiderationiswhethertheRTCvalidlyacquiredjurisdictionoverthepersonof
EAIC,defendantinCivilCaseNo.96177.

IntheirMemorandum,23respondentsarguethatatthetimethesummonswasserveduponDomingo,shewas
acting for and in behalf of EAIC. They further point out that, at any rate, EAICs filing of its Answer with
Counterclaim and the petition for relief from judgment before the trial court constitutes voluntary appearance
thereby submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the RTC. Respondents stress that the extrinsic fraud claimed by
EAICisnotavalidgroundforapetitionforannulmentofjudgmentbecausethelatterhadalreadyavailedofthe
saidgroundinapetitionfromrelieffromjudgmentincontraventiontoSection2,Rule47.24

InherMemorandum,25 Domingo argues that EAIC, in filing its Answer with Counterclaim and Petition for Relief
fromJudgment,hadinvokedthejurisdictionofthesametrialcourtthatitnowdenies.Further,sheclaimsthatshe
actedinutmostgoodfaithinreceivingthesummonsandfilingtheAnswerinCivilCaseNo.96177forEAICsince
shetrulybelievedthatshewasauthorizedtodoso.

Ontheotherhand,EAIC,initsMemorandum,26contendsthattherewasnovalidserviceofsummonsbecause
Domingo,atthetimesummonswasserved,wasnotitspresident,manager,secretary,cashier,agent,ordirector.
The GIS filed with the SEC consistently showed that she never held any position with EAIC which could have
authorizedhertoreceivesummonsinbehalfofEAIC.TheCAerredinconsideringtheAdverseClaimandNotice
ofLisPendensannotatedinTCTNo.T157038asconstructivenoticetoEAICofthependencyofCivilCaseNo.
96177and,therefore,clothedtheRTCwithjurisdictionoverthepersonofEAIC.ThoseannotationsintheTCT
merelyservetoapprisethirdpersonsofthecontroversyorpendinglitigationrelatingtothesubjectpropertybut
do not place a party under the jurisdiction of the court. Moreover, respondents duty to prosecute their case
diligentlyincludesensuringthattheproperpartiesareimpleadedandproperlyservedwithsummonses.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_174077_2012.html 3/7
8/30/2016 G.R.No.174077

TheCourtsRuling

TheCourtfindsmeritinthepetition.

Itisasettledrulethatjurisdictionoverthedefendantisacquiredeitheruponavalidserviceofsummonsorthe
defendants voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the courts
jurisdictionorwhenthereisnovalidserviceofsummons,anyjudgmentofthecourtwhichhasnojurisdictionover
thepersonofthedefendantisnullandvoid.27Thepurposeofsummonsisnotonlytoacquirejurisdictionover
thepersonofthedefendant,butalsotogivenoticetothedefendantthatanactionhasbeencommencedagainst
it and to afford it an opportunity to be heard on the claim made against it. The requirements of the rule on
summonsmustbestrictlyfollowed,otherwise,thetrialcourtwillnotacquirejurisdictionoverthedefendant.28

Section 13, Rule 14 of the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure, the applicable rule on service of summons upon a
privatedomesticcorporationthen,provides:

Sec.13.Serviceuponprivatedomesticcorporationorpartnership.Ifthedefendantisacorporationorganized
under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made on the president,
manager,secretary,cashier,agent,oranyofitsdirectors.[Underscoringsupplied]

Based on the abovequoted provision, for service of summons upon a private domestic corporation, to be
effectiveandvalid,shouldbemadeonthepersonsenumeratedintherule.Conversely,serviceofsummonson
anyone other than the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or director, is not valid. The purpose is to
renderitreasonablycertainthatthecorporationwillreceivepromptandpropernoticeinanactionagainstitorto
insurethatthesummonsbeservedonarepresentativesointegratedwiththecorporationthatsuchpersonwill
knowwhattodowiththelegalpapersservedonhim.29

Inthepresentcase,the1996GIS30ofEAIC,thepertinentdocumentshowingEAICscompositionatthetimethe
summons was served upon it, through Domingo, will readily reveal that she was not its president, manager,
secretary,cashier,agentordirector.Duetothisfact,theCourtisoftheviewthatherhonestbeliefthatshewas
theauthorizedcorporatesecretarywasclearlymistakenbecauseshewasevidentlynotthecorporatesecretary
sheclaimedtobe.InviewofDomingoslackofauthoritytoproperlyrepresentEAIC,theCourtisconstrainedto
rulethattherewasnovalidserviceofsummonsbindingonit.

GrantingarguendothatEAIChadactualknowledgeoftheexistenceofCivilCaseNo.96177lodgedagainstit,
theRTCstillfailedtovalidlyacquirejurisdictionoverEAIC.InCesarv.RicafortBautista,31itwasheldthat"xxx
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant or respondent cannot be acquired notwithstanding his
knowledge of the pendency of a case against him unless he was validly served with summons. Such is the
importantroleavalidserviceofsummonsplaysincourtactions."

TheCourtcannotlikewisesubscribetorespondentsargumentthatbyfilingitsanswerwithcounterclaim,through
Domingo, with the RTC, EAIC is deemed to have voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the RTC. In
Salengav.CourtofAppeals,32theCourtstated:

Acorporationcanonlyexerciseitspowersandtransactitsbusinessthroughitsboardofdirectorsandthroughits
officersandagentswhenauthorizedbyaboardresolutionoritsbylaws.Thepowerofacorporationtosueand
besuedisexercisedbytheboardofdirectors.Thephysicalactsofthecorporation,likethesigningofdocuments,
canbeperformedonlybynaturalpersonsdulyauthorizedforthepurposebycorporatebylawsorbyaspecificact
oftheboard.

Inthiscase,atthetimeshefiledtheAnswerwithCounterclaim,DomingowasclearlynotanofficerofEAIC,much
less duly authorized by any board resolution or secretarys certificate from EAIC to file the said Answer with
CounterclaiminbehalfofEAIC.Undoubtedly,DomingolackedthenecessaryauthoritytobindEAICtoCivilCase
No.96177beforetheRTCdespitethefilingofanAnswerwithCounterclaim.EAICcannotbeboundordeemed
tohavevoluntarilyappearedbeforetheRTCbytheactofanunauthorizedstranger.

Incidentally,DomingoallegedinherAnswerwithCounterclaimthat"AliciaE.Galaistherealownerandpossessor
ofalltherealpropertiesregisteredinthebusinessnameandstyleElliceAgroIndustrialCorporationxxx."33In
thesamepleading,DomingoclaimedthatshewasauthorizedbyAliciaE.Gala,thepurportedbeneficialownerof
the subject property, to represent her in Civil Case No. 96177 by virtue of a General Power of Attorney. In
advancing the said allegations, among others, Domingo evidently acted in representation of Alicia E. Gala, not
EAIC.Hence,herconductinthefilingoftheAnswerwithCounterclaimcannotandshouldnotbebindingtoEAIC.

InviewofthefactthatEAICwasnotvalidlyservedwithsummonsanddidnotvoluntarilyappearinCivilCaseNo.
96177,theRTCdidnotvalidlyacquirejurisdictionoverthepersonofEAIC.Consequently,theproceedingshad
beforetheRTCandultimatelyitsNovember11,1999Decisionwerenullandvoid. 1 w p h i1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_174077_2012.html 4/7
8/30/2016 G.R.No.174077

PursuanttoSection7,Rule4734oftheRulesofCourt,ajudgmentofannulmentshallsetasidethequestioned
judgmentorfinalorderorresolutionandrenderthesamenullandvoid.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheJuly1,2003DecisionandAugust8,2006ResolutionoftheCourtof
Appeals, in CAG.R. SP No. 64421, are hereby REVERSED. The November 11, 1999 Decision of the Regional
TrialCourtofLucenaCity,Branch60,inCivilCaseNo.96177,isherebydeclaredVACATEDandSETASIDE.

TherecordsofthecaseisherebyorderedremandedtotheRegionalTrialCourtofLucenaCity,Branch60,for
theproperserviceofsummonstothepetitionerandotherparties,ifany,andforotherappropriateproceedings.

SOORDERED.

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO* REOBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ **
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes

*Designatedactingmember,perSpecialOrderNo.1352,datedNovember7,2012.

**Designatedactingmember,perSpecialOrderNo.1229,datedAugust28,2012.

*** Pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 45 which states that public respondents need not be impleaded in the
petition,"RegionalTrialCourtofLucenaCity,Branch60"and"SheriffRobertoR.Ebuna"aredeletedfrom
thetitleofthecase.

1 Rollo, pp. 3845. Penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili with Associate Justice Cancio C.
Garcia(formerMemberofthisCourt)andAssociateJusticeElviJohnS.Asuncion,concurring.

2Id.at4749.PennedbyAssociateJusticeElviJohnS.AsuncionwithAssociateJusticeRobertoA.Barrios
andAssociateJusticeMarioL.GuarifiaIll,concurring.

3Id.at535536.

4Id.at361.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_174077_2012.html 5/7
8/30/2016 G.R.No.174077
5Id.at5053.

6Id.at361.

7Id.at9499.

8Id.at178.

9Id.at179.

10SEC.5.Effectoffailuretoappear.
Thefailureoftheplaintifftoappearwhensorequiredpursuanttothe
next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice,
unlessotherwiseorderedbythecourt.Asimilarfailureonthepartofthedefendantshallbecausetoallow
the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
(Underscoringsupplied)
11Rollo,p.130.

12Id.at133137.

13Id.at138.PennedbyJudgeStephenC.Cruz.

14 Section 3. Time for filing petition contents and verification. A petition provided for in either of the
precedingsectionsofthisRulemustbeverified,filedwithinsixty(60)daysafterthepetitionerlearnsofthe
judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such
judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken, and must be accompanied with
affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts
constituting the petitioners good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.
(Underscoringsupplied.)
15Rollo,pp.146161.

16 Sec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. If the defendant is a corporation
organizedunderthelawsofthePhilippinesorapartnershipdulyregistered,servicemaybemadeonthe
president,manager,secretary,cashier,agent,oranyofitsdirectors.
17 Rollo, pp. 5592. Compilation of Ellice AgroIndustrial Corporations General Information Sheet for the
year1991,1992,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,and1999.
18Id.at167171.

19Id.at178.

20Id.at179.

21Id.at184193.

22Id.at2223.

23Id.at514534.

24SEC.2.Groundsforannulment.Theannulmentmaybebasedonlyonthegroundsofextrinsicfraud
andlackofjurisdiction.

Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a
motionfornewtrialorpetitionforrelief.(Underscoringsupplied.)
25Rollo,pp.607621.

26Id.at474511.

27Manotocv.CA,530Phil.454,467(2006).

28PioneerInternational,Ltd.v.Guadiz,Jr.,G.R.No.156848,October11,2007,535SCRA584,600.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_174077_2012.html 6/7
8/30/2016 G.R.No.174077
29B.D.LongSpanBuildersv.R.S.AmpeloquioRealtyDevelopmentInc.,G.R.No.169919,September11,
2009,599SCRA468,474.
30Rollo,pp.7175

31536Phil.1037(2006).

32G.R.No.174941,February1,2012,664SCRA635,656.

33Rollo,p.95.

34SEC.7.Effectofjudgment.Ajudgmentofannulmentshallsetasidethequestionedjudgmentorfinal
orderorresolutionandrenderthesamenullandvoid,withoutprejudicetotheoriginalactionbeingrefiled
inthepropercourt.However,wherethejudgmentorfinalorderorresolutionissetasideonthegroundof
extrinsicfraud,thecourtmayonmotionorderthetrialcourttotrythecaseasifatimelymotionfornewtrial
hadbeengrantedtherein.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_174077_2012.html 7/7