4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

A.C. No. 11256. March 7, 2017.*

FLORDELIZA A. MADRIA, complainant, vs. ATTY. CARLOS P.

RIVERA, respondent.

Attorneys; Simulation of Court Decision; Simulating or participating

in the simulation of a court decision and a certificate of finality of the same
decision is an outright criminal falsification or forgery.—The respondent
acknowledged authorship of the petition for annulment of marriage, and of
the simulation of the decision and certificate of finality. His explanation of
having done so only upon the complainant’s persistent prodding did not
exculpate him from responsibility. For one, the explanation is unacceptable,
if not altogether empty. Simulating or participating in the simulation of a
court decision and a certificate of finality of the same decision is an outright
criminal falsification or forgery. One need not be a lawyer to know so, but it
was worse in the respondent’s case because he was a lawyer. Thus, his acts
were legally intolerable. Specifically, his deliberate falsification of the court
decision and the certificate of finality of the decision reflected a high degree
of moral turpitude on his part, and made a mockery of the administration of
justice in this country. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a
member of the Bar.
Same; That a lay person like the complainant could have swayed a
lawyer like the respondent into committing the simulations was patently
improbable.—The respondent would shift the blame to his client. That a lay
person like the complainant could have swayed a lawyer like the respondent
into committing the simulations was patently improbable. Yet, even if he
had committed the simulations upon the client’s prodding, he would be no
less responsible. Being a lawyer, he was aware of and was bound by the
ethical canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly those
quoted earlier, which would have been enough to deter him from
committing the falsification, as well as to make him unhesitatingly frustrate
her prodding in deference to his sworn obligation as a lawyer to always act
with honesty and to obey the laws of the land. Surely, too, he

_______________

* EN BANC.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Madria vs. Rivera

could not have soon forgotten his express undertaking under his
Lawyer’s Oath to “do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission.” Indeed,
the ethics of the Legal Profession rightly enjoined every lawyer like him to
act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the
course of his practice of law.
Same; Lawyer’s Oath; By choosing to ignore his fiduciary
responsibility for the sake of getting her money, he committed a further
violation of his Lawyer’s Oath by which he swore not to “delay any man’s
cause for money or malice,” and to “conduct [him]self as a lawyer
according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to [his] clients.”—Canon 15 and Rule 18.04 of
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility required the respondent
be true to the complainant as his client. By choosing to ignore his fiduciary
responsibility for the sake of getting her money, he committed a further
violation of his Lawyer’s Oath by which he swore not to “delay any man’s
cause for money or malice,” and to “conduct [him]self as a lawyer
according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to [his] clients.” He compounded this violation by
taking advantage of his legal knowledge to promote his own selfish motives,
thereby disregarding his responsibility under Canon 17.
Same; Disbarment; Grounds for Disbarment.—Under Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be disbarred on any of the
following grounds, namely: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct
in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly or willfully
appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority so to do.
Same; Simulation of Court Decision; Falsifying or simulating the court
papers amounted to deceit, malpractice or misconduct in office, any of
which was already a ground sufficient for disbarment under Section 27,
Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.—Falsifying or simulating the court papers
amounted to deceit, malpractice or misconduct in office, any of which was
already a ground sufficient for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 38 of the
Rules of Court. The moral standards of the Legal Profession expected the
respondent to act with the highest degree of professionalism, decency, and
nobility in

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

263

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017 263

Madria vs. Rivera

the course of their practice of law. That he turned his back on such
standards exhibited his baseness, lack of moral character, dishonesty, lack of
probity and general unworthiness to continue as an officer of the Court.
Same; Disbarment; The power to disbar is always exercised with great
caution and only for the most imperative reasons or in cases of clear
misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an
officer of the court and member of the bar.—It is true that the power to
disbar is always exercised with great caution and only for the most
imperative reasons or in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing
and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of
the bar. But we do not hesitate when the misconduct is gross, like in the
respondent’s case. We wield the power now because the respondent, by his
gross misconduct as herein described, absolutely forfeited the privilege to
remain in the Law Profession.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Grave

Misconduct and Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

A lawyer who causes the simulation of court documents not only

violates the court and its processes, but also betrays the trust and
confidence reposed in him by his client and must be disbarred to
maintain the integrity of the Law Profession.

Antecedents

In November 2002, complainant Flordeliza A. Madria consulted

the respondent in his law office in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan to
inquire about the process of annulling her marriage with her
husband, Juan C. Madria. After giving the details of her marriage
and other facts relevant to the annulment, the respondent told her
that she had a strong case, and guaranteed that he could obtain for
her the decree of annul-

264

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Madria vs. Rivera

ment. He told her, too, that his legal services would cost P25,000.00,
and that she should return on November 19, 2002 inasmuch as he
would still prepare the complaint for the annulment. At the time of
the consultation, she was accompanied by her daughter, Vanessa
Madria, and her nephew, Jayson Argonza.1
The complainant returned to the respondent’s office on
November 19, 2002. On that occasion, he showed her the petition
for annulment, and asked her to sign it. She paid to him an initial
amount of P4,000.00.2 He acknowledged the payment through a
handwritten receipt.3
The complainant again went to the respondent’s office on
December 16, 2002 to deliver another partial payment, and to follow
up on the case. The respondent advised her to just wait for the
resolution of her complaint, and assured her that she did not need to
appear in court. He explained that all the court notices and processes
would be sent to his office, and that he would regularly apprise her
of the developments.4 On December 28, 2002, she returned to his
office to complete her payment, and he also issued his receipt for the
payment.5
The complainant’s daughter Vanessa thereafter made several
follow ups on behalf of her mother. In the latter part of April 2003,
the respondent informed the complainant that her petition had been
granted.6 Thus, Vanessa went to the respondent’s office and received
a copy of the trial court’s decision dated April 16, 2003 signed by
Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 4, in Tuguegarao City.7

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 5-6.

2 Id., at p. 6.
3 Id., at p. 13.
4 Id., at p. 6.
5 Id., at p. 14.
6 Id., at p. 7.
7 Id., at pp. 15-16.

265

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017 265

Madria vs. Rivera
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13
4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

According to the complainant, the respondent advised her to

allow five months to lapse after the release of the decision before
she could safely claim the status of “single.” After the lapse of such
time, she declared in her Voter’s Registration Record (VRR) that she
was single.8
The complainant, again through Vanessa, received from the
respondent a copy of the certificate of finality dated September 26,
2003 signed by one Jacinto C. Danao of the RTC (Branch 4).9
Believing that the documents were authentic, the complainant
used the purported decision and certificate of finality in applying for
the renewal of her passport.10 However, she became the object of an
investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) because
her former partner, Andrew Dowson Grainge, had filed a complaint
charging that she had fabricated the decision for the annulment of
her marriage. Only then did she learn that the decision and the
certificate of finality given by the respondent did not exist in the
court records, as borne out by the letter signed by Atty. Aura
Clarissa B. Tabag-Querubin, Clerk of Court of the RTC Branch IV,
to wit:

MS. RACHEL M. ROXAS

Officer-in-Charge
Regional Consular Office
Tuguegarao City

Madam:

This is in reply to your letter dated June 23, 2011 inquiring on whether Civil
Case No. 6149 for the Annulment of Marriage between Flordeliza Argonza
Madria and Juan C. Madria was filed and decided by this Court.

_______________

8 Id., at p. 7.
9 Id., at p. 17.
10 Id., at p. 44.

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Madria vs. Rivera

As per records of this Court, the above entitled case was filed on April 25,
2003 but was dismissed as per Order of this Court dated April 6, 2004.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/13
4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

The signature of the [sic] Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino as appearing in the
alleged decision attached to your letter is a blatant forgery.
For your information and guidance.
Very truly yours,
(sgd)
AURA CLARISSA B. TABAG-QUERUBIN
Clerk of Court V11

As a result, the complainant faced criminal charges for violation

of the Philippine Passport Act in the RTC in Tuguegarao City.12 She
claims that she had relied in good faith on the representations of the
respondent; and that he had taken advantage of his position in
convincing her to part with her money and to rely on the falsified
court documents.13
In his answer,14 the respondent denies the allegations of the
complainant. He averred that he had informed her that he would still
be carefully reviewing the grounds to support her petition; that she
had insisted that he should prepare the draft of her petition that she
could show to her foreigner fiance; that she had also prevailed upon
him to simulate the court decision to the effect that her marriage had
been annulled, and to fabricate the certificate of finality; that she had
assured him that such simulated documents would be kept strictly
confidential; that he had informed her that the petition had been filed
in April 2003, but she had paid no attention to such information; that
she had not appeared in any of the scheduled hearings despite
notice; and that he had not

_______________

11 Id., at p. 18.
12 Id., at p. 44.
13 Id.
14 Id., at pp. 23-26.

267

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017 267

Madria vs. Rivera

heard from her since then, and that she had not even returned to his
office.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13
4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

Findings and Recommendation of the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

After conducting her investigation, IBP Commissioner Rebecca

Villanueva-Maala submitted her Report and Recommendation15
wherein she concluded that the respondent had violated his Lawyer’s
Oath; and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for
a period of two years.
The IBP Board of Governors, albeit adopting the findings of
Commissioner Villanueva-Maala, modified the recommendation of
suspension from the practice of law for two years to disbarment
through its Resolution No. XXI-2015-242, to wit:
RESOLUTION NO. XXI-2015-242
CDB Case No. 14-4315
Flordeliza A. Madria v.
Atty. Carlos P. Rivera

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED AND

APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner in the above entitled case, herein made part of
this Resolution as Annex “A,” considering violation of his lawyer’s oath as
a lawyer and a member of the Bar by preparing a simulated Court decision
granting the petition for annulment of marriage of complainant and a
certificate of finality of the annulment petition. Hence, Atty. Carlos P.
Rivera is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.16

_______________

15 Id., at pp. 72-76.

16 Id., at p. 70.

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Madria vs. Rivera

Ruling of the Court

We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors.
The respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition for
annulment of marriage, and of the simulation of the decision and
certificate of finality. His explanation of having done so only upon
the complainant’s persistent prodding did not exculpate him from

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

responsibility. For one, the explanation is unacceptable, if not

altogether empty. Simulating or participating in the simulation of a
court decision and a certificate of finality of the same decision is an
outright criminal falsification or forgery. One need not be a lawyer
to know so, but it was worse in the respondent’s case because he was
a lawyer. Thus, his acts were legally intolerable. Specifically, his
deliberate falsification of the court decision and the certificate of
finality of the decision reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on
his part, and made a mockery of the administration of justice in this
country. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of
the Bar.
The respondent directly contravened the letter and spirit of Rules
1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and Rule 15.07, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, to wit:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,

OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
xxxx

269

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017 269

Madria vs. Rivera

CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS

AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH
HIS CLIENTS.
Rule 15.07 – A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance
with the laws and the principles of fairness.

The respondent would shift the blame to his client. That a lay
person like the complainant could have swayed a lawyer like the
respondent into committing the simulations was patently
improbable. Yet, even if he had committed the simulations upon the
client’s prodding, he would be no less responsible. Being a lawyer,
he was aware of and was bound by the ethical canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly those quoted earlier, which
would have been enough to deter him from committing the
falsification, as well as to make him unhesitatingly frustrate her
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/13
4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

prodding in deference to his sworn obligation as a lawyer to always

act with honesty and to obey the laws of the land. Surely, too, he
could not have soon forgotten his express undertaking under his
Lawyer’s Oath to “do no falsehood, nor consent to its
commission.”17 Indeed, the ethics of the Legal Profession rightly
enjoined every lawyer like him to act with the highest standards of
truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of
law.18 As we have observed in one case:19

Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible

and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, a lawyer should
determine his conduct by acting in a manner that would promote public
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Members of the Bar are
expected to always live up to the

_______________

17 The Lawyer’s Oath, as stated in Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
18 Arroyo-Posidio v. Vitan, A.C. No. 6051, April 2, 2007, 520 SCRA 1, 8.
19 Nakpil v. Valdes, A.C. No. 2040, March 4, 1998, 286 SCRA 758, 774.

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Madria vs. Rivera

standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility as the

relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature
and demands utmost fidelity and good faith.

Also, Canon 1520 and Rule 18.0421 of Canon 18 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility required the respondent be true to the
complainant as his client. By choosing to ignore his fiduciary
responsibility for the sake of getting her money, he committed a
further violation of his Lawyer’s Oath by which he swore not to
“delay any man’s cause for money or malice,” and to “conduct
[him]self as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his]
clients.” He compounded this violation by taking advantage of his
legal knowledge to promote his own selfish motives, thereby
disregarding his responsibility under Canon 17.22
Under Section 27,23 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/13
4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

_______________

20 Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings and transactions with his client.
21 Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
22 Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
23 Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
grounds therefor.—A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of
a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing
as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents
or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent
court or other disciplinary agency in a foreign

271

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017 271

Madria vs. Rivera

may be disbarred on any of the following grounds, namely: (1)

deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly
immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly or willfully
appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority so to
do.
Falsifying or simulating the court papers amounted to deceit,
malpractice or misconduct in office, any of which was already a
ground sufficient for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 38 of the
Rules of Court.24 The moral standards of the Legal Profession
expected the respondent to act with the highest degree of
professionalism, decency, and nobility in the course of their practice
of law.25 That he turned his back on such standards exhibited his
baseness, lack of moral character, dishonesty, lack of probity and
general unworthiness to continue as an officer of the Court.26
We note that the respondent was previously sanctioned for
unprofessional conduct. In Cruz-Villanueva v. Rivera,27 he was
suspended from the practice of law because he had notarized

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

documents without a notarial commission. This circumstance shows

his predisposition to beguile other persons into

_______________

jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his
disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts
hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall
be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension. (As amended by
SC Resolution dated February 13, 1992)
24 In re Avanceña, A.C. No. 407, August 15, 1967, 20 SCRA 1012, 1014.
25 Manzano v. Soriano, A.C. No. 8051, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 1, 9.
26 Flores v. Chua, A.C. No. 4500, April 30, 1999, 306 SCRA 465, 483.

272

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Madria vs. Rivera

believing in the documents that he had falsified or simulated. It is

time to put a stop to such proclivity. He should be quickly removed
through disbarment.
It is true that the power to disbar is always exercised with great
caution and only for the most imperative reasons or in cases of clear
misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer
as an officer of the court and member of the bar.28 But we do not
hesitate when the misconduct is gross, like in the respondent’s case.
We wield the power now because the respondent, by his gross
misconduct as herein described, absolutely forfeited the privilege to
remain in the Law Profession. As we reminded in Embido v. Pe,
Jr.,29 in which we disbarred the respondent lawyer for falsifying a
court decision:

No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the
legal profession is always a privilege that the Court extends only to the
deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to him
who fails to observe and respect the Lawyer’s Oath and the canons of
ethical conduct in his professional and private capacities. He may be
disbarred or suspended from the practice of law not only for acts and
omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his professional dealings, but
also for gross misconduct not directly connected with his professional duties
that reveal his unfitness for the office and his unworthiness of the principles
that the privilege to practice law confers upon him. Verily, no lawyer is

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13
4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

immune from the disciplinary authority of the Court whose duty and
obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer misconduct committed either
in a professional or private capacity. The test is whether the conduct shows
the lawyer to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good
demeanor, and whether the

_______________

27 A.C. No. 7123, November 20, 2006, 507 SCRA 248.

28 Kara-an v. Pineda, A.C. No. 4306, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 143, 146.
29 A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013, 708 SCRA 1.

273

VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017 273

Madria vs. Rivera

conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer of the

Court.30

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and HOLDS Atty. CARLOS P.

RIVERA guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and VIOLATION
OF THE LAWYER’S OATH; and ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS
his DISBARMENT. Let his name be STRICKEN from the ROLL
OF ATTORNEYS.
This decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
Let copies of this decision be furnished to: (a) the OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR for dissemination to all courts
throughout the country for their information and guidance; (b) the
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES; (c) the OFFICE
OF THE BAR CONFIDANT for appending to the respondent’s
personal record as a member of the Bar; and (d) the OFFICE OF
THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE for possible criminal prosecution of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe,
Leonen, Jardeleza and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

Atty. Carlos P. Rivera disbarred for grave misconduct and

violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/13
4/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

Notes.—The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin every

lawyer to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and
nobility in the course of his practice of law. Lawyers are prohibited
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct
and are mandated to serve their clients with competence and
diligence. (Arroyo-Posidio vs. Vitan, 520 SCRA 1 [2007])

_______________

30 Id., at pp. 10-11.

274

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Madria vs. Rivera

A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or

suspended from his office as an attorney, for violation of the
lawyer’s oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession
as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
(Foster vs. Agtang, 744 SCRA 242 [2014])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a2c04577f432dbf30003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13