2/3/2019 G.R. No.

165487

SECOND DIVISION

COUNTRY BANKERS G.R. No. 165487

INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
Present:

CARPIO,J.,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO DE CASTRO,*
-versus- VILLARAMA, JR.,**
PEREZ, and
SERENO, JJ.

Promulgated:
ANTONIO LAGMAN,
Respondent. July 13, 2011
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
[1] [2]
Civil Procedure, assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated 21 June 2004 and 24 September 2004, respectively.

These are the undisputed facts.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 1/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

Nelson Santos (Santos) applied for a license with the National Food
Authority (NFA) to engage in the business of storing not more than 30,000 sacks of
palay valued at P5,250,000.00 in his warehouse at Barangay Malacampa,
Camiling, Tarlac. Under Act No. 3893 or the General Bonded Warehouse Act, as
[3]
amended, the approval for said license was conditioned upon posting of a cash
bond, a bond secured by real estate, or a bond signed by a duly authorized bonding
company, the amount of which shall be fixed by the NFA Administrator at not less
than thirty-three and one third percent (33 1/3%) of the market value of the
maximum quantity of rice to be received.

Accordingly, Country Bankers Insurance Corporation (Country Bankers)

[4]
issued Warehouse Bond No. 03304 for P1,749,825.00 on 5 November 1989 and
[5]
Warehouse Bond No. 02355 for P749,925.00 on 13 December 1989 (1989
Bonds) through its agent, Antonio Lagman (Lagman). Santos was the bond
principal, Lagman was the surety and the Republic of the Philippines, through the
NFA was the obligee. In consideration of these issuances, corresponding Indemnity
[6]
Agreements were executed by Santos, as bond principal, together with Ban Lee
Lim Santos (Ban Lee Lim), Rhosemelita Reguine (Reguine) and Lagman, as co-
signors. The latter bound themselves jointly and severally liable to Country
Bankers for any damages, prejudice, losses, costs, payments, advances and
expenses of whatever kind and nature, including attorneys fees and legal costs,
which it may sustain as a consequence of the said bond; to reimburse Country
Bankers of whatever amount it may pay or cause to be paid or become liable to pay
thereunder; and to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum computed and
compounded monthly, as well as to pay attorneys fees of 20% of the amount due it.
[7]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 2/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

[8]
Santos then secured a loan using his warehouse receipts as collateral.
When the loan matured, Santos defaulted in his payment. The sacks of palay
covered by the warehouse receipts were no longer found in the bonded warehouse.
[9]
By virtue of the surety bonds, Country Bankers was compelled to pay
[10]
P1,166,750.37.

Consequently, Country Bankers filed a complaint for a sum of money

docketed as Civil Case No. 95-73048 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila. In his Answer, Lagman alleged that the 1989 Bonds were valid only for 1
year from the date of their issuance, as evidenced by receipts; that the bonds were
never renewed and revived by payment of premiums; that on 5 November 1990,
Country Bankers issued Warehouse Bond No. 03515 (1990 Bond) which was also
valid for one year and that no Indemnity Agreement was executed for the purpose;
and that the 1990 Bond supersedes, cancels, and renders no force and effect the
[11]
1989 Bonds.

The bond principals, Santos and Ban Lee Lim, were not served with summons
[12]
because they could no longer be found. The case was eventually dismissed
[13]
against them without prejudice. The other co-signor, Reguine, was declared in
[14]
default for failure to file her answer.

On 21 September 1998, the trial court rendered judgment declaring Reguine and
Lagman jointly and severally liable to pay Country Bankers the amount of
[15] [16]
P2,400,499.87. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering defendants

Rhomesita [sic] Reguine and Antonio Lagman, jointly and severally liable to pay
plaintiff, Country Bankers Assurance Corporation, the amount of P2,400,499.87,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 3/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

with 12% interest from the date the complaint was filed until fully satisfied plus
20% of the amount due plaintiff as and for attorneys fees and to pay the costs.

As the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of defendants
Nelson Santos and Ban Lee Lim Santos, let the case against them be DISMISSED.
Defendant Antonio Lagmans counterclaim is likewise DISMISSED, for lack of
[17]
merit.

In holding Lagman and Reguine solidarily liable to Country Bankers, the trial court
relied on the express terms of the Indemnity Agreement that they jointly and
severally bound themselves to indemnify and make good to Country Bankers any
liability which the latter may incur on account of or arising from the execution of
[18]
the bonds.

The trial court rationalized that the bonds remain in force unless cancelled by the
Administrator of the NFA and cannot be unilaterally cancelled by Lagman. The
trial court emphasized that for the failure of Lagman to comply with his obligation
under the Indemnity Agreements, he is likewise liable for damages as a
consequence of the breach.

Lagman filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA G.R. CV No.

61797. He insisted that the lifetime of the 1989 Bonds, as well as the corresponding
Indemnity Agreements was only 12 months. According to Lagman, the 1990 Bond
was not pleaded in the complaint because it was not covered by an Indemnity
[19]
Agreement and it superseded the two prior bonds.

On 21 June 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision reversing
and setting aside the Decision of the RTC and ordering the dismissal of the
[20]
complaint filed against Lagman.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 4/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

The appellate court held that the 1990 Bond superseded the 1989 Bonds. The
appellate court observed that the 1990 Bond covers 33.3% of the market value of
the palay, thereby manifesting the intention of the parties to make the latter bond
more comprehensive. Lagman was also exonerated by the appellate court from
liability because he was not a signatory to the alleged Indemnity Agreement of 5
November 1990 covering the 1990 Bond. The appellate court rejected the argument
of Country Bankers that the 1989 bonds were continuing, finding, as reason
therefor, that the receipts issued for the bonds indicate that they were effective for
only one-year.

Country Bankers sought reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated 24

[21]
September 2004.
Expectedly, Country Bankers filed the instant petition attributing two (2) errors to
the Court of Appeals, to wit:

A.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
DISREGARDING THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 177 OF THE
INSURANCE CODE WHEN IT HELD THAT THE SUBJECT SURETY
BONDS WERE SUPERSEDED BY A SUBSEQUENT BOND
NOTWITHSTANDING THE NON-CANCELLATION THEREOF BY THE
BOND OBLIGEE.

B.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT RECEIPTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS PREVAIL
OVER THE EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE SURETY BOND THAT FIXES
[22]
THE TERM THEREOF.

Country Bankers maintains that by the express terms of the 1989 Bonds, they shall
remain in full force until cancelled by the Administrator of the NFA. As continuing
bonds, Country Bankers avers that Section 177 of the Insurance Code applies, in

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 5/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

that the bond may only be cancelled by the obligee, by the Insurance Commissioner
or by a competent court.

Country Bankers questions the existence of a third bond, the 1990 Bond,
which allegedly cancelled the 1989 Bonds on the following grounds: First, Lagman
failed to produce the original of the 1990 Bond and no basis has been laid for the
presentation of secondary evidence; Second, the issuance of the 1990 Bond was not
approved and processed by Country Bankers; Third, the NFA as bond obligee was
not in possession of the 1990 Bond. Country Bankers stresses that the cancellation
of the 1989 Bonds requires the participation of the bond obligee. Ergo, the bonds
remain subsisting until cancelled by the bond obligee. Country Bankers further
assert that Lagman also failed to prove that the NFA accepted the 1990 Bond in
replacement of the 1989 Bonds.

Country Bankers notes that the receipts issued for the 1989 Bonds are mere
evidence of premium payments and should not be relied on to determine the period
of effectivity of the bonds. Country Bankers explains that the receipts only
represent the transactions between the bond principal and the surety, and does not
involve the NFA as bond obligee.

Country Bankers calls this Courts attention to the incontestability clause contained
in the Indemnity Agreements which prohibits Lagman from questioning his liability
therein.

In his Comment, Lagman raises the issue of novation by asserting that the 1989
Bonds were superseded by the 1990 Bond, which did not include Lagman as party.
Therefore, Lagman argues, Country Bankers has no cause of action against him.
Lagman also reiterates that because of novation, the 1989 bonds are neither
perpetual nor continuing.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 6/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

Lagman anchors his defense on two (2) arguments: 1) the 1989 Bonds have
expired and 2) the 1990 Bond novates the 1989 Bonds.

The Court of Appeals held that the 1989 bonds were effective only for one
(1) year, as evidenced by the receipts on the payment of premiums.

We do not agree.

The official receipts in question serve as proof of payment of the premium

for one year on each surety bond. It does not, however, automatically mean that the
surety bond is effective for only one (1) year. In fact, the effectivity of the bond is
not wholly dependent on the payment of premium. Section 177 of the Insurance
Code expresses:

Sec. 177. The surety is entitled to payment of the premium as soon as the
contract of suretyship or bond is perfected and delivered to the obligor. No
contract of suretyship or bonding shall be valid and binding unless and until the
premium therefor has been paid, except where the obligee has accepted the
bond, in which case the bond becomes valid and enforceable irrespective of
whether or not the premium has been paid by the obligor to the surety:
Provided, That if the contract of suretyship or bond is not accepted by, or filed
with the obligee, the surety shall collect only reasonable amount, not exceeding
fifty per centum of the premium due thereon as service fee plus the cost of stamps
or other taxes imposed for the issuance of the contract or bond: Provided, however,
That if the non-acceptance of the bond be due to the fault or negligence of the
surety, no such service fee, stamps or taxes shall be collected. (Emphasis supplied)

The 1989 Bonds have identical provisions and they state in very clear terms
the effectivity of these bonds, viz:

NOW, THEREFORE, if the above-bounded Principal shall well and truly deliver
to the depositors PALAY received by him for STORAGE at any time that demand
therefore is made, or shall pay the market value therefore in case he is unable to
return the same, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise it shall
remain in full force and effect and may be enforced in the manner provided by said
Act No. 3893 as amended by Republic Act No. 247 and P.D. No. 4. This bond

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 7/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

shall remain in force until cancelled by the Administrator of National Food

[23]
Authority.

This provision in the bonds is but in compliance with the second paragraph of
Section 177 of the Insurance Code, which specifies that a continuing bond, as in
this case where there is no fixed expiration date, may be cancelled only by the
obligee, which is the NFA, by the Insurance Commissioner, and by the court. Thus:

In case of a continuing bond, the obligor shall pay the subsequent annual
premium as it falls due until the contract of suretyship is cancelled by the obligee
or by the Commissioner or by a court of competent jurisdiction, as the case may
be.

By law and by the specific contract involved in this case, the effectivity of the bond
required for the obtention of a license to engage in the business of receiving rice for
storage is determined not alone by the payment of premiums but principally by the
Administrator of the NFA. From beginning to end, the Administrators brief is the
enabling or disabling document.

The clear import of these provisions is that the surety bonds in question
cannot be unilaterally cancelled by Lagman. The same conclusion was reached by
the trial court and we quote:

As there appears no record of cancellation of the Warehouse Bonds No. 03304 and
No. 02355 either by the administrator of the NFA or by the Insurance
Commissioner or by the Court, the Warehouse Bonds are valid and binding and
cannot be unilaterally cancelled by defendant Lagman as general agent of the
[24]
plaintiff.

While the trial court did not directly rule on the existence and validity of the
1990 Bond, it upheld the 1989 Bonds as valid and binding, which could not be
unilaterally cancelled by Lagman. The Court of Appeals, on the other hand,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 8/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

acknowledged the 1990 Bond as having cancelled the two previous bonds by
novation. Both courts however failed to discuss their basis for rejecting or
admitting the 1990 Bond, which, as we indicated, is bone to pick in this case.

Lagmans insistence on novation depends on the validity, nay, existence of the

allegedly novating 1990 Bond. Country Bankers understandably impugns both. We
see the point. Lagman presented a mere photocopy of the 1990 Bond. We rule as
inadmissible such copy.

Under the best evidence rule, the original document must be produced
[25]
whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry. The rule is encapsulated in
Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as follow:

Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the subject

of inquiry is the contents of a documents, no evidence shall be admissible other
than the original document itself, except in the following cases:

(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought
to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or
[26]
is recorded in a public office.

A photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is not admissible unless it is

[27]
shown that the original is unavailable. Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court states:
SEC.5 When original document is unavailable. When the original
document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror,
upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without
bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 9/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order

stated.

Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents

of the original, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or due
execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason
for its non-production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad
faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct order
[28]
of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents.

In the case at bar, Lagman mentioned during the direct examination that there
are actually four (4) duplicate originals of the 1990 Bond: the first is kept by the
NFA, the second is with the Loan Officer of the NFA in Tarlac, the third is with
[29]
Country Bankers and the fourth was in his possession. A party must first
present to the court proof of loss or other satisfactory explanation for the non-
[30]
production of the original instrument. When more than one original copy exists,
it must appear that all of them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court before secondary evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy may not be
[31]
used without accounting for the other originals.

Despite knowledge of the existence and whereabouts of these duplicate

originals, Lagman merely presented a photocopy. He admitted that he kept a copy
of the 1990 Bond but he could no longer produce it because he had already severed
his ties with Country Bankers. However, he did not explain why severance of ties is
by itself reason enough for the non-availability of his copy of the bond considering
that, as it appears from the 1989 Bonds, Lagman himself is a bondsman. Neither
did Lagman explain why he failed to secure the original from any of the three other
custodians he mentioned in his testimony. While he apparently was able to find the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 10/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

original with the NFA Loan Officer, he was merely contented with producing its
photocopy. Clearly, Lagman failed to exert diligent efforts to produce the original.

Fueling further suspicion regarding the existence of the 1990 Bond is the
absence of an Indemnity Agreement. While Lagman argued that a 1990 Bond
novates the 1989 Bonds, he raises the defense of non-existence of an indemnity
agreement which would conveniently exempt him from liability. The trial court
deemed this defense as indicia of bad faith, thus:

To the observation of the Court, defendant Lagman contended that being a

general agent (which requires a much higher qualification than an ordinary agent),
he is expected to have attended seminars and workshops on general insurance
wherein he is supposed to have acquired sufficient knowledge of the general
principles of insurance which he had fully practised or implemented from
experience. It somehow appears to the Courts assessment of his reneging liability
of the bonds in question, that he is still short of having really understood the
principle of suretyship with reference to the transaction of indemnity in which he
is a signatory. If, as he alleged, that he is well-versed in insurance, the Court finds
no excuse for him to stand firm in denying his liability over the claim against the
bonds with indemnity provision. If he insists in not recognizing that liability, the
more that this Court is convinced that his knowledge that insurance operates under
the principle of good faith is inadequate. He missed the exception provided by
Section 177 of the Insurance Code, as amended, wherein non-payment of premium
would not have the same essence in his mind that the agreements entered into
would not have full force or effect. It could be glimpsed, therefore, that the mere
fact of cancelling bonds with indemnity agreements and replacing them
(absence of the same) to escape liability clearly manifests bad faith on his
[32]
part. (Emphasis supplied.)

Having discounted the existence and/or validity of the 1990 Bond, there can be no
novation to speak of. Novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by the
substitution or change of the obligation by a subsequent one which extinguishes or
modifies the first, either by changing the object or principal conditions, or by
substituting another in place of the debtor, or by subrogating a third person in the
rights of the creditor. For novation to take place, the following requisites must
concur: 1) There must be a previous valid obligation; 2) The parties concerned must
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 11/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

agree to a new contract; 3) The old contract must be extinguished; and 4) There
[33]
must be a valid new contract.

In this case, only the first element of novation exists. Indeed, there is a
previous valid obligation, i.e., the 1989 Bonds. There is however neither a valid
new contract nor a clear agreement between the parties to a new contract since the
very existence of the 1990 Bond has been rendered dubious. Without the new
contract, the old contract is not extinguished.

Implied novation necessitates a new obligation with which the old is in total
incompatibility such that the old obligation is completely superseded by the new
[34]
one. Quite obviously, neither can there be implied novation. In this case, there
is no new obligation.
The liability of Lagman is expressed in Indemnity Agreements executed in
consideration of the 1989 Bonds which we have considered as continuing contracts.
Under both Indemnity Agreements, Lagman, as co-signor, together with Santos,
Ban Lee Lim and Reguine, bound themselves jointly and severally to Country
Bankers to indemnify it for any damage or loss sustained on the account of the
execution of the bond, among others. The pertinent identical stipulations of the
Indemnity Agreements state:

INDEMNITY: ─ To indemnify and make good to the COMPANY jointly and

severally, any damages, prejudice, loss, costs, payments advances and expenses of
whatever kind and nature, including attorneys fees and legal costs, which the
COMPANY may, at any time, sustain or incur, as well as to reimburse to said
COMPANY all sums and amounts of money which the COMPANY or its
representatives shall or may pay or cause to be paid or become liable to pay, on
account of or arising from the execution of the above-mentioned BOND or any
extension, renewal, alteration or substitution thereof made at the instance of the
[35]
undersigned or anyone of them.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 12/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

Moreover, the Indemnity Agreements also contained identical

Incontestability Clauses which provide:

INCONTESTABILITY OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE COMPANY: ─

Any payment or disbursement made by the COMPANY on account of the above-
mentioned Bond, its renewals, extensions, alterations or substitutions either in the
belief that the COMPANY was obligated to make such payment or in the belief
that said payment was necessary or expedient in order to avoid greater losses or
obligations for which the COMPANY might be liable by virtue of the terms of the
above-mentioned Bond, its renewals, extensions, alterations, or substitutions, shall
be final and shall not be disputed by the undersigned, who hereby jointly and
severally bind themselves to indemnify [Country Bankers] of any and all such
payments, as stated in the preceding clauses.

In case the COMPANY shall have paid[,] settled or compromised any

liability, loss, costs, damages, attorneys fees, expenses, claims[,] demands, suits, or
judgments as above-stated, arising out of or in connection with said bond, an
itemized statement thereof, signed by an officer of the COMPANY and other
evidence to show said payment, settlement or compromise, shall be prima facie
evidence of said payment, settlement or compromise, as well as the liability of the
undersigned in any and all suits and claims against the undersigned arising out of
[36]
said bond or this bond application.
Lagman is bound by these Indemnity Agreements. Payments made by
Country Bankers by virtue of the 1989 Bonds gave rise to Lagmans obligation to
reimburse it under the Indemnity Agreements. Lagman, being a solidary debtor, is
liable for the entire obligation.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution

of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 61797 are SET ASIDE and the
Decision dated 21 September 1998 of the RTC is hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 13/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO DE CASTRO MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

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.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 14/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 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

* Per Special Order No. 1006.

** Per Special Order No. 1043.
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Mariano C.
Del Castillo (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) concurring. Rollo, pp. 29-36.
[2]
Id. at 37(a)-38.
[3]
As amended by Republic Act No. 247 (An Act to Amend Act No. 3893), Presidential Decree No. 4 (Creating the
National Grain Authority) and Presidential Decree No. 1770 (Creating the National Food Authority).
[4]
Records, p. 6.
[5]
Id. at 7.
[6]
Id. at 8-11.
[7]
Rollo, p. 57.
[8]
Santos obtained a loan from Far East Bank and Trust Co. and which was guaranteed by Quedan Rural Credit
Guarantee Corporation (Quedancor). He obtained a P4 Million loan, as evidenced by two (2) Promissory
Notes under the Quedan Financing For Grain Stocks program which matures on 29 January 1991. Santos
executed a Pledge Agreement using his Quedan Warehouse Receipts covering the sacks of palay to
guarantee payment of said loans. Quedancor then issued a Certificate of Guarantee Coverage upon request
of FEBTC. Records, pp. 214-219 and 225.
[9]
Id. at 223.
[10]
The NFA, acting in behalf of Quedancor, proceeded against the surety bonds issued by Country Bankers which,
in turn, partially paid P1,166,750.37 to Quedancor and left a balance of P1,233,749.50. Id. at 233-234.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 15/16
2/3/2019 G.R. No. 165487

[11]
Answer with Affirmative and Special Defenses and Counterclaim. Rollo, pp. 61-63.
[12]
Records, p. 22.
[13]
Order dated 18 September 1995. Id. at 51.
[14]
Id. at 47.
[15]
See note 10.
[16]
Presided by Judge Zenaida R. Daguna. Rollo, pp. 81-86.
[17]
Id. at 86.
[18]
Id. at 84.
[19]
Brief for Antonio Lagman. CA rollo, pp. 21-24.
[20]
Rollo, pp. 29-36.
[21]
Id. at 37(a)-38.
[22]
Id. at 14.
[23]
Records, p. 174.
[24]
Id. at 281.
[25]
Herrera, REMEDIAL LAW, Vol. V (1999 ed.), p. 166.
[26]
See Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (SOLIDBANK) v. Del Monte Motor Works, Inc., G.R. No.
143338, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 117, 130-131.
[27]
Lee v. Tambago, A.C. No. 5281, 12 February 2008, 544 SCRA 393, 404.
[28]
Citibank, N.A. Mastercard v. Teodoro, 458 Phil. 480, 489 (2003) citing De Vera v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 83377, 9
February 1993, 218 SCRA 602, 606.
[29]
Testimony of Antonio Lagman. TSN, 29 April 1997, pp. 12-13.
[30]
Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150206, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 70, 87-88 citing
Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. Del Rosario, 490 Phil. 193, 204 (2005).
[31]
Citibank, N.A. Mastercard v. Teodoro, supra note 27 at 490 citing Herrera, REMEDIAL LAW, Vol. V (1999 ed.),
p. 178 citing further 5 Moran 88 (1980 ed.) and Peaks v. Cobb, 192 77 N.E. 881.
[32]
Rollo, p. 43.
[33]
Adriatico Consortium, Inc. v. LandBank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187838, 23 December 2009, 609 SCRA
403, 421 citing Valenzuela v. Kalayaan Development & Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 163244, 22 June
2009, 590 SCRA 380, 390-391; Security Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. Cuenca, 396 Phil. 108, 122
(2000); Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120817, 4 November 1996, 264 SCRA 35, 43.
[34]
Salazar v. J.Y. Brothers Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 171998, 20 October 2010; Foundation Specialists,
Inc. v. Betonval Ready Concrete, Inc., G.R. No. 170674, 24 August 2009, 596 SCRA 697, 707 citing Iloilo
Traders Finance, Inc. v. Heirs of Sps. Soriano, Jr., 452 Phil. 82, 89-90 (2003); Aquintey v. Tibong, G.R. No.
166704, 20 December 2006, 511 SCRA 414, 435-436.
[35]
Records, pp. 175-177.
[36]
Id.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/165487.htm 16/16