2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 518

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Suan vs. Gonzalez

*
A.C. No. 6377. March 12, 2007.

RUFA C. SUAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. RICARDO D.

GONZALEZ, respondent.

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Disbarment; Pleadings and Practice;

While every litigant is expected to examine all the documents that
he files in court, not every mistake or oversight he commits should
be deemed dishonest, deceitful or deliberate so as to mislead the
court.—Complainant’s insistence that respondent deliberately
attached the MTCC certification instead of the RTC certification
lacks merit. We are inclined to believe the findings of the IBP that
the MTCC certification was inadvertently attached and that it
was not deliberate. Indeed, respondent as well as every litigant is
expected to examine all the documents he files in court. However,
not every mistake or oversight he commits should be deemed
dishonest, deceitful or deliberate so as to mislead the court.
Respondent has nothing to gain by submitting the wrong
certification. On the contrary, he runs the risk that his complaint
be dismissed or denied outright.

Same; Same; Same; In disbarment proceedings, the burden of

proof rests upon the complainant and the case against the
respondent must be established by clear, convincing and
satisfactory proof.—It is well-settled that in disbarment
proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and
the case against the respondent must be established by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious
consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the
Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant
evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the
administrative penalty. In the instant case, complainant Suan
failed to show that respondent willfully and deliberately resorted
to falsehood and unlawful and dishonest conduct. She failed to
show not only the dubious character of the act done but the
motivation as well.

Same; Same; Same; Perjury; Evidence; A mere assertion of a

false, objective fact, a falsehood, is not enough to warrant a finding
of perjury—the prosecution must prove which of the two statements

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779a4462cd50ae50a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 518

is false and must show the statement to be false by other evidence

than

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

83

VOL. 518, MARCH 12, 2007 83

Suan vs. Gonzalez

the contradicting statement; It is necessary that there must be

contradictory statements for perjury to exist.—Anent the
allegation of perjury, the same is likewise bereft of merit. In the
case of Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice, 475 SCRA 495 (2005),
the Court held that a mere assertion of a false, objective fact, a
falsehood, is not enough to warrant a finding of perjury, thus:
There are two essential elements of proof for perjury: (1) the
statement made by the defendants must be proven false; and (2) it
must be proven that the defendant did not believe those
statements to be true. x x x x A conviction for perjury cannot be
sustained merely upon the contradictory sworn statements of the
accused. The prosecution must prove which of the two
statements is false and must show the statement to be false
by other evidence than the contradicting statement.
(Emphasis supplied) Thus, it is necessary that there must be
contradictory statements for perjury to exist. In the instant
case, we find that respondent made no contradicting statements.
Indeed, he alleged in the complaint before the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas that the minority stockholders own more or less P5
million while the controlling stockholders own approximately
80% of the authorized capital stock. These figures are mere
estimates and in no way contradict respondent’s allegations in the
complaint pending before the RTC that the minority’s stake is P6
million while the majority’s stockholdings is 70% of the
outstanding capital stock.

Same; Same; Same; Forum Shopping; Words and Phrases;

The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a
favorable judgment.—We agree with the findings of the IBP that
there is no forum shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the
filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the
purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. There is forum
shopping when, between an action pending before this Court and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779a4462cd50ae50a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 518

another one, there exist: a) identity of parties, or at least such

parties as represent the same interests in both actions, b) identity
of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on
the same facts, and c) the identity of the two preceding particulars
is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will,
regardless of which party is successful amount to res judicata in
the action under consideration; and said requisites also
constitutive of lis pendens.

84

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Suan vs. Gonzalez

Same; Same; Same; Same; Banks and Banking; The filing of

an intra-corporate case before the RTC and a complaint with the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, invoking BSP’s supervisory powers
over banking operations which does not amount to a judicial
proceeding, does not constitute forum shopping.—The filing of the
intra-corporate case before the RTC does not amount to forum-
shopping. It is a formal demand of respondent’s legal rights in a
court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the
law with respect to the controversy involved. The relief sought in
the case is primarily to compel the bank to disclose its
stockholdings, to allow them the inspection of corporate books and
records, and the payment of damages. It was also prayed that a
TRO be issued to enjoin the holding of the annual stockholder’s
meeting and the election of the members of the Board, which, only
courts of justice can issue. On the other hand, the complaint filed
with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas was an invocation of the
BSP’s supervisory powers over banking operations which does not
amount to a judicial proceeding. It brought to the attention of the
BSP the alleged questionable actions of the bank’s Board of
Directors in violation of the principles of good corporate
governance. It prayed for the conduct of an investigation over the
alleged unsafe and unsound business practices of the bank and to
make necessary corrective measures to prevent the collapse of the
bank. As such, the two proceedings are of different nature praying
for different relief. Likewise, a ruling by the BSP concerning the
soundness of the bank operations will not adversely or directly
affect the resolution of the intra-corporate controversies pending
before the trial court.

Same; Same; Same; Same; To merit disciplinary action, forum

shopping must be willful and deliberate.—To merit disciplinary
action, forum shopping must be willful and deliberate. Section 5,
Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires that, should there be any
pending action or claim before any court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency, a complete statement of its status should be

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779a4462cd50ae50a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 518

given. The Certification of Non-Forum shopping attached by

respondent substantially complied with this requirement by
providing therein that he has also filed a Complaint before the
BSP. Likewise, such disclosure negates the allegation that he
willfully and deliberately committed forum shopping.

85

VOL. 518, MARCH 12, 2007 85

Suan vs. Gonzalez

Same; Same; Same; The power to disbar must be exercised

with great caution and only in a clear case of misconduct which
seriously affects the standing and character of a lawyer as an
officer of the Court and member of the bar.—It bears stressing
that disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest,
undertaken for public welfare and for the purpose of preserving
courts of justice from the official ministration of the persons unfit
to practice them. However, the power to disbar must be exercised
with great caution and only in a clear case of misconduct which
seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an
officer of the Court and member of the bar.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Violation

of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Perjury and
Forum Shopping.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Samuel A.M. Jardin for complainant.
     Villaraza and Angangco Law Office for respondent.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

The instant administrative complaint filed by Rufa C. Suan

charges respondent Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzalez with
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, perjury
and forum shopping, and prays for his suspension or
disbarment. Complainant is a Director and Vice President
of Rural Green Bank of Caraga, Inc., a rural banking
corporation with principal place of business at Montilla
Blvd., Butuan City, while respondent is one of its
stockholders.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On February 11, 2004, respondent filed a case for
Mandamus, Computation of Interests, Enforcement of
Inspection, Dividend and Appraisal Rights, Damages and
Attorney’s Fees against the Rural Green Bank of Caraga,
Inc. and the members of its Board of Directors before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 33,

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779a4462cd50ae50a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 518

praying, inter alia, that a temporary restraining order be

issued enjoining the conduct
86

86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Suan vs. Gonzalez

of the annual stockholders’ meeting and the holding of the

election of the Board of Directors.
On February 14, 2004, the trial court issued a temporary
restraining order (TRO) conditioned upon respondent’s
post-ing of a bond. Thereafter, respondent submitted JCL
Bond No. 01626 issued by Stronghold Insurance Company,
Incorporated (SICI) together with a Certification issued by
then Court Administrator, now Associate Justice,
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. that, according to the Clerk of
Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of
Butuan City, SICI has no pending obligation and/or
liability to the government insofar as confiscated bonds in
civil and criminal cases are concerned.
Based on the foregoing, Suan filed this complaint
alleging that respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct when he submitted the
certification to the RTC despite knowing that the same is
applicable only for transactions before the MTCC; and that
the bond was defective because it was released by SICI
despite respondent’s failure to put up the required
P100,000.00 collateral.
Suan also claimed that in the complaint filed by
respondent, together with Eduardo, Purisima, Ruben, and
Manuel, all surnamed Tan, before the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas (BSP) against Ismael E. Andaya and the
members of the Board of Directors of the Rural Green Bank
of Caraga, Inc. for alleged gross violation of the principles
of good corporate governance, they represented themselves
as the bank’s minority stockholders with a total holdings
amounting to more or less P5 million while the controlling
stockholders own approximately 80% of the authorized
capital stock.
Suan averred that respondent committed perjury
because the above allegations were allegedly inconsistent
with re-spondent’s averments in the complaint pending
before the RTC where he claimed that the majority
stockholders own 70% (and not 80%) of the outstanding
capital stock of the
87

VOL. 518, MARCH 12, 2007 87

Suan vs. Gonzalez
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779a4462cd50ae50a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 518

Rural Green Bank of Caraga, Inc. while the minority stock-

holders’ stake amounted to P6 million (and not P5
million).
Complainant finally claimed that respondent is guilty of
forum shopping because the causes of action of the cases he
filed before the RTC and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
are the same.
Respondent denied the allegations against him. He
alleged that it was the bonding company which
inadvertently attached the certification pertaining to the
MTCC; that when he discovered the inadvertence, he
immediately filed with the RTC an ex-parte motion to
replace the certification with the one pertaining to the
RTC; that he had satisfactorily complied with the
requirements of SICI as shown in the letter of Ms. Evelyn
R. Ramirez, SICI’s Officer-in-Charge, dated March 19,
2004; that there is no inconsistency in the allegations
contained in the complaints pending before the RTC and
the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas thus he could not be held
liable for perjury; that there is no forum shopping because
the causes of action and the reliefs prayed for in the cases
pending before the trial court and the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas are different; and that it is complainant who is
guilty of forum shopping since this is the second
disbarment suit that she filed against him.
In her Reply, complainant insisted that she is not guilty
of forum shopping; that she only filed one disbarment suit
against respondent while the other two suits were filed by
Joseph Omar Andaya and Dr. Arturo Cruz based on
different acts committed by the respondent.
On December 1, 2004, the instant administrative
complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. After the mandatory conference, the
parties were directed to submit their respective position
papers. In a Report and Recommendation dated September
20, 2005, the Investigating Commissioner recommended
that the administrative complaint be dismissed because
complainant failed to prove by strong and substantial
88

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Suan vs. Gonzalez

evidence the imputations of dishonesty against the

respondent.
In its Resolution dated December 17, 2005, the Board of
Governors of the IBP approved the dismissal of the
complaint.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779a4462cd50ae50a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 518

Complainant is now before us on appeal praying for the

reversal and setting aside of the assailed Resolution
arguing that it failed to state clearly the facts and the
reasons on which it is based and that the evidence she
presented were ignored and not considered.
Complainant maintains that contrary to the findings of
the IBP, respondent’s act of submitting a wrong
certification to the RTC, relative to SICI’s capacity to issue
bonds, was deliberate and with intent to mislead, thereby
constituting a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. She claims that respondent who is
interested in the issuance of a temporary restraining order
is expected to examine all the documents as well as the
attachments, hence there is no reason why he would
“inadvertently” attach the certification intended for the
MTCC.
We are not persuaded.
Complainant’s insistence that respondent deliberately
attached the MTCC certification instead of the RTC
certification lacks merit. We are inclined to believe the
findings of the IBP that the MTCC certification was
inadvertently attached and that it was not deliberate.
Indeed, respondent as well as every litigant is expected to
examine all the documents he files in court. However, not
every mistake or oversight he commits should be deemed
dishonest, deceitful or deliberate so as to mislead the court.
Respondent has nothing to gain by submitting the wrong
certification. On the contrary, he runs the risk that his
complaint be dismissed or denied outright.
There is no reason for respondent, or even the bonding
company, to attach the wrong certification as the latter was
equally qualified to issue bonds in civil or criminal cases
pending before the RTC. Further, what militates against
complainant’s insistence that the filing of the wrong
certifica-
89

VOL. 518, MARCH 12, 2007 89

Suan vs. Gonzalez

tion was deliberate and with intent to deceive was the fact
that after respondent knew of the inadvertence he
immediately filed a manifestation with motion that the
same be replaced with the certification applicable to the
RTC.
It is well-settled that in disbarment proceedings, the
burden of proof rests upon the complainant and the case
against the respondent must be established by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious
consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779a4462cd50ae50a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 518

of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear

preponderant evidence is necessary 1to justify the
imposition of the administrative penalty. In the instant
case, complainant Suan failed to show that respondent
willfully and deliberately resorted to falsehood and
unlawful and dishonest conduct. She failed to show not
only the dubious 2 character of the act done but the
motivation as well.
Complainant next claims that the injunction bond was
wrongfully released to respondent by SICI as the latter
failed to put up the required collateral, as shown in the
February 28, 2004 letter of Evelyn R. Ramirez which the
IBP allegedly ignored. She also insists that protesting the
propriety of the bond before the trial court is not a pre-
requisite to the filing of the instant administrative
complaint. Besides, she argues that it would have been
futile to file a protest before the trial court considering that
she knew of the defects in the issuance of the injunction
bond long after the bond has expired.
The argument is without merit.
The IBP correctly disregarded the February 28, 2004
letter of Ramirez considering that on March 19, 2004,
Ramirez wrote another letter to the trial court informing
the latter of respondent’s compliance with the required
collateral.

_______________

1 Concepcion v. Fandiño, Jr., 389 Phil. 474, 481; 334 SCRA 136, 142
(2000).
2 Rudecon Management Corporation v. Camacho, Adm. Case No. 6403,
August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 202, 208.

90

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Suan vs. Gonzalez

Anent the allegation of perjury, the same is likewise bereft3

of merit. In the case of Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice,
the Court held that a mere assertion of a false, objective
fact, a falsehood, is not enough to warrant a finding of
perjury, thus:

“There are two essential elements of proof for perjury: (1) the
statement made by the defendants must be proven false; and (2) it
must be proven that the defendant did not believe those
statements to be true.
xxxx
A conviction for perjury cannot be sustained merely upon the
contradictory sworn statements of the accused. The prosecution

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779a4462cd50ae50a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 518

must prove which of the two statements is false and must

show the statement to be4 false by other evidence than the
contradicting statement.” (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, it is necessary that there must be contradictory

statements for perjury to exist. In the instant case, we find
that respondent made no contradicting statements. Indeed,
he alleged in the complaint before the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas that the minority stockholders own more or less
P5 million while the controlling stockholders own
approximately 80% of the authorized capital stock. These
figures are mere estimates and in no way contradict
respondent’s allegations in the complaint pending before
the RTC that the minority’s stake is P6 million while the
majority’s stockholdings is 70% of the outstanding capital
stock.
Besides, for perjury to prosper it is necessary that
complainant prove the falsity of the statements and that
respondent did not believe any of the statements to be true.
We find that complainant failed to meet the required
standard of proof to sustain the charge of perjury. The IBP
correctly noted that no malice was shown when respondent
made the foregoing allegations and that respondent’s
failure to allege the exact

_______________

3 G.R. No. 162187, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 495.

4 Id., at p. 514.

91

VOL. 518, MARCH 12, 2007 91

Suan vs. Gonzalez

shareholdings was due to the bank’s refusal to allow

respondent to inspect the books.
We agree with the findings of the IBP that there is no
forum shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the filing
of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively,
5
for
the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. There is
forum shopping when, between an action pending before
this Court and another one, there exist: a) identity of
parties, or at least such parties as represent the same
interests in both actions, b) identity of rights asserted and
relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts,
and c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such
that any judgment rendered in the other action, will,
regardless of which party is successful amount to res

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779a4462cd50ae50a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 518

judicata in the action under consideration; 6

and said
requisites also constitutive of lis pendens.
The filing of the intra-corporate case before the RTC
does not amount to forum-shopping. It is a formal demand
of re-spondent’s legal rights in a court of justice in the
manner prescribed by the court
7
or by the law with respect
to the controversy involved. The relief sought in the case is
primarily to compel the bank to disclose its stockholdings,
to allow them the inspection of corporate books and
records, and the payment of damages. It was also prayed
that a TRO be issued to enjoin the holding of the annual
stockholder’s meeting and the election of the members of
the Board, which, only courts of justice can issue.
On the other hand, the complaint filed with the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas was an invocation of the BSP’s
supervisory powers over banking operations which does not
amount

_______________

5 T’boli Agro-Industrial Development, Inc. v. Solilapsi, 442 Phil. 499,

507; 394 SCRA 269, 278 (2002).
6 Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank & Trust Company, G.R.
No. 131247, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 74, 83-84.
7 Supena v. De La Rosa, 334 Phil. 671, 677; 267 SCRA 1, 10 (1997).

92

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Suan vs. Gonzalez

to a judicial proceeding. It brought to the attention of the

BSP the alleged questionable actions of the bank’s Board of
Directors in violation of the principles of good corporate
governance. It prayed for the conduct of an investigation
over the alleged unsafe and unsound business practices of
the bank and to make necessary corrective measures to
prevent the collapse of the bank.
As such, the two proceedings are of different nature
praying for different relief. Likewise, a ruling by the BSP
concerning the soundness of the bank operations will not
adversely or directly affect the resolution of the intra-
corporate controversies pending before the trial court.
Furthermore, to merit disciplinary 8
action, forum
shopping must be willful and deliberate. Section 5, Rule 7
of the Rules

_______________

8 SECTION 5. Certification against forum shopping.—The plaintiff or

principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779a4462cd50ae50a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 518

pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed

thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge,
no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar
action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint
or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable
by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall
be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party
or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground

93

VOL. 518, MARCH 12, 2007 93

Suan vs. Gonzalez

of Court requires that, should there be any pending action

or claim before any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency,
a complete statement of its status should be given. The
Certification of Non-Forum shopping attached by
respondent substantially complied with this requirement
by providing therein that he has also filed a Complaint
before the BSP. Likewise, such disclosure negates the
allegation that he willfully and deliberately committed
forum shopping.
It bears stressing that disbarment proceedings are
matters of public interest, undertaken for public welfare
and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the9
official ministration of the persons unfit to practice them.
However, the power to disbar must be exercised with great
caution and only in a clear case of misconduct which
seriously affects the standing and character of 10the lawyer
as an officer of the Court and member of the bar.
ACCORDINGLY, we AFFIRM the Resolution dated
December 17, 2005, of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
recommending the dismissal of the instant complaint for
disbarment/suspension against respondent ATTY.
RICARDO D. GONZALEZ for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.

     Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario and Nachura, JJ.,

concur.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779a4462cd50ae50a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 518

     Callejo, Sr., J., On Leave.

Resolution of Integrated Bar of the Philippines affirmed.

_______________

for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct

contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
9 Urban Bank, Inc. v. Peña, 417 Phil. 70, 77; 364 SCRA 597, 602 (2001).
10 Resurreccion v. Sayson, 360 Phil. 313, 321; 300 SCRA 129, 136
(1998).

94

94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Verzosa vs. Contreras

Notes.—Complaining party in a disbarment petition

which was dismissed for utter lack of merit ordered to show
cause why he should not be punished for contempt for
attempting to foist falsities upon the Supreme Court and
abuse of court processes. (Buhangin Residents and
Employees Association for Development, Inc. [BREAD] vs.
Nuñez-Malanyaon, 273 SCRA 462 [1997])
By swearing the lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a
guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable
instrument in the fair and impartial administration of
justice—a vital function of democracy a failure of which is
disastrous to society. (Busiños vs. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407
[1997])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779a4462cd50ae50a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12