C13.15 Land Bank of The Philippines vs. de Leon, 388 SCRA 537, September 10, 2002

3/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388
VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 537

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. De Leon
*
G.R. No. 143275.September 10, 2002.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

ARLENE DE LEON and BERNARDO DE LEON,
respondents.
Remedial Law; Mode of Review; A petition for review, not an

ordinary appeal, is the proper procedure in effecting appeal from
decisions of the Regional Trial Courts acting as Special Agrarian
Courts in cases involving the determination of just compensation
to the landowners concerned.—A petition for review, not an
ordinary appeal, is the proper procedure in effecting an appeal
from decisions of the Regional Trial Courts acting as Special
Agrarian Courts in cases involving the determination of just
compensation to the landowners concerned. Section 60 of RA 6657
clearly and categorically states that the said mode of appeal
should be adopted. There is no room for a contrary interpretation.
Where the law is clear and categorical, there is no room for
construction, but only application.
Same; Same; Reference by Section 61 to the Rules of Court
only means that the procedure under Rule 42 for petitions for
review is to be followed for appeals in agrarian cases.—
Considering that RA 6657 cannot and does not provide the details
on how the petition for review shall be conducted, a suppletory
application of the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court is
necessary. In fact, Section 61 uses the word "review" to designate
the mode by which the appeal is to be effected. The reference
therefore by Section 61 to the Rules of Court only means that the
procedure under Rule 42 for petitions for review is to be followed
for appeals in agrarian cases.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decisions of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Gonzales, Navarro & Associates for petitioner.
Fernando A. Santiago for private respondents.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017838ae56393c9c4a7b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
538
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CORONA, J.:
1
Before us is a petition for review of the resolution,
2
dated
February 15, 2000, of the Court of Appeals dismissing the
ordinary appeal of petitioner Land Bank
3
of the Philippines
(LBP, for brevity), and resolution dated May 22, 2000
denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
The undisputed facts as found by the appellate court are
as follows:
The petitioners-appellees Arlene de Leon and Bernardo de Leon

are the registered owners of a parcel of land situated at San
Agustin, Concepcion, Tarlac covered by TCT No. 163051 with a
total area of 50.1171 hectares. The subject property was
voluntarily offered for sale to the government pursuant to RA
6657 at P50,000.00 per hectare. The Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) made a counter offer of P17,656.20 per hectare, or
a total amount of P884,877.54, but the same was rejected.
Another offer was made by DAR increasing the amount to
P1,565,369.35. In view of the petitioners-appellees’ failure to
respond to the new offer made by DAR, the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) took cognizance of
the case pursuant to Sec. 16 (d) of RA 6657. Subsequently, the
DARAB issued an Order directing respondent-appellant LBP to
recompute the value of the subject property in accordance with
DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992. Applying the
pertinent provisions of the said DAR administrative order,
respondent-appellant arrived at a recomputed land value as
follows:
Land Use Area Value/hectare Total/Land

Acquired Value
Sugarland 32.4187 P61,758.85 P2,002,141.63
Riceland 16.6984 P28,449.80 P475,066.14
Idle land 1.0000 P14,523.78 P14,523.78
or an aggregate amount of P2,491,731.65, which was again

rejected by the petitioners-appellees.
In a Petition dated October 27, 1994, filed with the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Tarlac, which is the
designated Special Agrarian Court
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo Brawner and concurred in by

Associate Justices Fermin Martin, Jr. and Renato C. Dacudao; Rollo, pp.
7-13.
2 Fourth Division.
3 Rollo, p. 14.
539
VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 539

in the area, petitioners-appellees asked the court, among

others, to fix the just compensation of the subject property.
In due time the court rendered a summary judgment on December

19, 1997 fixing the compensation of the subject property as
follows:
a. P1,260,000.00 for the 16.69 hectares of riceland;

b. P2,957,250.00 for the 30.4160 hectares of sugarland.
Within the time allowed, respondent-appellant filed a Motion4

for Reconsideration which was subsequently denied by the Court.
x x x x x x x x x
On March 17, 1998, the Department of Agrarian Reform

filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for review of the
decision of the Special Agrarian Court. The said petition,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 47005, was assigned to the
Special Third (3rd) Division of the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner LBP also initiated in the Court of Appeals an
appeal of the same decision of the Special Agrarian Court
by filing a notice of appeal. Docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
60365, the said ordinary appeal was assigned to the Fourth
(4th) Division of the Court of Appeals.
On November 6, 1998, the Special Third (3rd) Division of
the appellate court, through
5
then Associate Justice
Minerva GonzagaReyes,
6
rendered in CA-G.R. SP No.
47005 a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is

GIVEN DUE COURSE. The decision dated February 9, 1998 is
partially reconsidered. The trial court is ordered to recompute the
compensation based on the selling price of palay at 213.00 per

cavan. Petitioner is ordered to pay legal interest at 6% of the
compensation so fixed from 1990 until full payment is made by
the government. 7
SO ORDERED.”
Thereafter, on February 15, 2000, the Fourth (4th) Division

of the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner LBP’s ordinary
appeal
_______________
4 Rollo, pp. 7-8.

5 Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
6 Rollo, pp. 96-102.
7 Rollo, p. 101.
540

(CA-G.R. CV No. 60365), in a resolution dated February 15,

2000, the dispositive portion of which reads:
8
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
In dismissing the ordinary appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 60365)

instituted by petitioner LBP, the appellate court reasoned
that the mode of appeal followed by the petitioner was
erroneous considering that Section 60 of RA 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law, mandates that appeals from decisions of Special
Agrarian Courts should be by petition for review.
Therefore, the notice of appeal filed by LBP was ineffectual
and did not stop the running of the period of appeal. Also,
the appellate court took note of the decision rendered by
the Special Third (3rd) Division of the same court involving
the same issue and parties, to wit:
All these notwithstanding LBP does not stand to lose anything at

all. While it did suffer a setback in this instant case LBP in one
way or the other still we note that it is likewise victorious in the
appeal brought by the DAR (CA-G.R. SP 47005). In a decision
rendered on November 6, 1998 this court ordered the trial court to
recompute the compensation based on the selling price of palay at
P213.00 per cavan. Thus to this effect with more reason that we
should deny the appeal—even granting the mode of appeal as
availed of is correct—to
9
avoid any contradiction of this division’s
with that of the other.
Petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration but the

same was denied in a resolution dated May 22, 2000.
Hence, this petition questioning the resolutions of the
Fourth (4th) Division of the Court of Appeals on the
following assignment of errors:
IN RULING THAT SECTION 60 OF RA 6657 PROVIDES THE

PROPER MODE FOR THE REVIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF
THE SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURTS DESPITE SECTION 61 OF
RA 6657
_______________
8 Rollo, p. 13.
9 Rollo, pp. 12-13.
541
VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 541

WHICH EXPRESSLY MANDATES THAT THE RULES OF

COURT SHALL GOVERN THE REVIEW OF THE DECISIONS
OF THE SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURTS BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS;
II
IN NOT RECOGNIZING THAT SECTION 61 OF RA 6657

PREVAILS OVER SECTION 60 OF RA 6657, INASMUCH AS
THE MODE OF APPEAL OF A COURT’S DECISION IS A
MATTER OF PROCEDURE WHICH IS COVERED BY THE
EXCLUSIVE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME
COURT UNDER SECTION 5(5), ARTICLE VIII OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXISTING
JURISPRUDENCE;
III
IN DECLARING THAT THE SUPREME COURT MERELY

MADE AN INADVERTENT “MISTAKE” IN REVISING
SECTION 1, RULE 43 OF THE RULES OF COURT AND
REMOVING THE DECISIONS OF THE SPECIAL AGRARIAN
COURT FROM THE LIST OF THOSE APPEALABLE TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS BY PETITION FOR REVIEW; AND
IV
IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER,

DESPITE ITS RULING THAT THE SUPREME COURT MADE A
MISTAKE IN ITS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS, RENDERING
SUCH DISMISSAL AS HIGHLY UNJUST,10
OPPRESSIVE AND
CONTRARY TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
The case at bar requires an interpretation of Sections 60

and 61 of RA 6657. The said provisions provide that:
Section 60. Appeals.—An appeal may be taken from the decision

of the Special Agrarian Courts by filing a petition for review with
the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice
of the decision; otherwise, the decision shall become final.
Section 61. Procedure in Review.—Review by the Court of
appeals or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, shall be
governed by the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals, however,
may require the parties to file simultaneous memoranda within a
period of fifteen (15) days from notice, after which the case is
deemed submitted for decision.
_______________
10 Rollo, pp. 24-25.
542

Respondent spouses point to Section 60 of RA 6657 to

support their view that the mode of appeal initiated by
petitioner LBP was erroneous. On the other hand,
petitioner LBP believes that the mode of appeal it used is
permissible under Section 61 of the same law.
What indeed is the proper mode of appeal from decisions
of the Regional Trial Courts, sitting as Special Agrarian
Courts, in the determination of just compensation—an
appeal by way of a petition for review or an ordinary
appeal?
Section 2 of Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure provides for three modes of appeal, to wit:
Sec. 2. Modes of Appeal.—
(a) Ordinary appeal.—The appeal to the Court of Appeals in

cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise
of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice
of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or

final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon
the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required
except in special proceedings and other cases or multiple
or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so
require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed
and served in like manner.
(b) Petition for Review.—The appeal to the Court of Appeals
in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for
review in accordance with Rule 42.
(c) Appeal by Certiorari.—In all cases where only questions of
law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the
Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in
accordance with Rule 45.
Petitioner LBP, in its bid to maintain the legitimacy of its

appeal, contends that the proper mode of appeal from a
decision of the Special Agrarian Court is by way of a notice
of appeal due to the reference by Section 61 of RA 6657 to
the Rules of Court as the governing procedure for appeals
to the Court of Appeals. This being the case, the petitioner
claims that the procedure for ordinary appealed cases
provided for in Section 2 (a) of Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure must be followed, that is, a notice
of appeal is required in order to perfect the appeal.
According to the petitioner, this is the proper mode of
appeal in the case at bar considering that the appealed
decision is that of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise
of its original jurisdiction. Moreover, Section
543
VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 543

11
1 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
(pertaining to appeals by way of petitions for review to the
Court of Appeals of decisions of quasi-judicial agencies and
the Court of Tax Appeals), does not include decisions of the
Regional Trial Courts acting as Special Agrarian Courts.
We deny the petition.
A petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the
proper procedure in effecting an appeal from decisions of
the Regional Trial Courts acting as Special Agrarian
Courts in cases involving the determination of just
compensation to the landowners concerned. Section 60 of
RA 6657 clearly and categorically states that the said mode
of appeal should be adopted. There is no room for a

contrary interpretation. Where the law is clear and
categorical, 12there is no room for construction, but only
application.
According to the petitioner, Section 61 of RA 6657
should be followed, not Section 60. The reference by Section
61 to the Rules of Court implies that an ordinary appeal
requiring a notice of appeal is the proper manner of
appealing decisions of Special Agrarian Courts on just
compensation because Section 2(a) of Rule 41 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides that decisions of
the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their original
jurisdiction follow the procedure governing ordinary
appeals.
_______________
11 Section 1. Scope.—This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments

or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments,
final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in
the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the
Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land
Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics
Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National
Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National
Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under
Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees
Compensation Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board
of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and
voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
12 National Telecommunications Commission vs. Court of Appeals, 311
SCRA 508, 514 (1999).
544

We do not agree.
First, there is no conflict between Section 60 and 61 of
RA 6657 inasmuch as the Rules of Court do not at all
prescribe the procedure for ordinary appeals as the proper
mode of appeal for decisions of Special Agrarian Courts.
Section 61 in fact makes no more than a general reference
to the Rules of Court and does not even mention the
procedure for ordinary appeals in Section 2, Rule 41 of the
1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure as the appropriate
method of elevating to the Court of Appeals decisions of

Special Agrarian Courts in eminent domain cases.
Second, the failure to mention Special Agrarian Courts
in Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure cannot be construed to mean that a petition for
review is not permissible for decisions of the said special
courts. In fact, the said Rule is not relevant to determine
whether a petition for review is the proper mode of appeal
from decisions of Regional Trial Courts in agrarian cases,
that is, when they act as Special Agrarian Courts. Section 1
of Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
merely mentions the Court of Tax Appeals and the other
different quasijudicial agencies without exclusivity in its
phraseology. Such omission cannot be construed to justify
the contention that a petition for review is prohibited for
decisions on special agrarian cases inasmuch as the
category is for quasi-judicial agencies and tax courts to
which the Regional Trial Courts do not properly13
belong.
Although Supreme Court Circular No. 1-91 (precursor to
Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure) included
the decisions of Special Agrarian Courts in the
enumeration requiring petition for review, its non-inclusion
later on in Rule 43 merely signifies that it was
inappropriately classified as a quasi-judicial agency.
What is indisputable is that Section 60 expressly regards a petition

for review as the proper way of appealing decisions of agrarian
courts. So far, there is no rule prescribed by this Court expressly
disallowing the said procedure.
_______________
13 The Circular is entitled “Prescribing the Rules Governing Appeals to

the Court of Appeals from a Final Order or Decision of the Court of Tax
Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies.”
545
VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 545

Third, far from being in conflict, Section 61 of RA 6657 can

easily be harmonized with Section 60. The reference to the
Rules of Court means that the specific rules for petitions
for review in the Rules of Court and other relevant
procedures in appeals filed before the Court of Appeals
shall be followed in appealed decisions of Special Agrarian
Courts. Considering that RA 6657 cannot and does not
provide the details on how the petition for review shall be

conducted, a suppletory application of the pertinent
provisions of the Rules of Court is necessary. In fact,
Section 61 uses the word “review” to designate the mode by
which the appeal is to be effected. The reference therefore
by Section 61 to the Rules of Court only means that the
procedure under Rule 42 for petitions for review is to be
followed for appeals in agrarian cases.
According to the petitioner, an ordinary appeal
prescribed under the Rules of Court should prevail over a
petition for review provided under Section 60 of RA 6657
inasmuch as a contrary interpretation would violate the
constitutional provision granting to the Supreme Court the
power to “promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of
law, the Integrated Bar, and14Legal Assistance to the under-
privileged.” (italics supplied)
As earlier mentioned, there is nothing in the Rules of
Court that categorically prohibits the adoption of the
procedure for petitions for review of decisions of Special
Agrarian Courts. Section 60 of RA 6657 and the provisions
of the Rules of Court can be harmonized and can co-exist.
Moreover, the same Section 5 (5), Article VIII, of the
1987 Philippine Constitution quoted by the petitioner
states that “(r)ules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by
the Supreme Court.” Section 60 is obviously a special
procedure. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, it cannot
be otherwise merely because it was formulated by the
legislature and not by any special body. As long as the said
section provides for a particular process for the governance
of the special court concerned, the provision is accurately
classified as a
_______________
14 Section 5(5), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
546

special procedure. Subject to constitutional limitations, the

statutory enactment of a special procedure cannot be said
to encroach on the power of this Court to formulate rules of
procedure for the reason that we have not yet provided for
a particular process specifically governing agrarian courts.

In fact, this Court exercises its constitutional power to
promulgate special rules of procedure by adopting Sections
60 and 61 of RA 6657 declaring a petition for review as the
proper mode of appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The reason why it is permissible to adopt a petition for
review when appealing cases decided by the Special
Agrarian Courts in eminent domain cases is the need for
absolute dispatch in the determination of just
compensation. Just compensation means not only paying
the correct amount but also paying for the land within a
reasonable time from its acquisition. Without prompt
payment, compensation cannot be considered “just” for the
property owner is made to suffer the consequences of being
immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait
for a decade or more before actually
15
receiving the amount
necessary to cope with his loss. Such objective is more in
keeping with the nature of a petition for review.
Unlike an ordinary appeal, a petition for review
dispenses with the filing of a notice of appeal or completion
of records as requisites before any pleading is submitted. A
petition for review hastens the award of fair recompense to
deprived landowners for the government-acquired
property, an end not foreseeable in an ordinary appeal.
This is exemplified by the case at bar in which the petition
for review before the Special Third (3rd) Division (CA-G.R.
SP No. 47005) was disposed of way ahead of the ordinary
appeal filed before the Fourth (4th) Division (CA-G.R. CV
No. 60365) in the Court of Appeals.
Inasmuch as the notice of appeal filed by petitioner LBP
did not stop the running of the reglementary period to file a
petition for review, the time to appeal the decision of the
Special Agrarian Court has lapsed, rendering the said
decision final and executory.
_______________
15 Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. Philippine Export Processing Zone, 349

SCRA 240, 264 (2001).
547
VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 547

People vs. Elona
WHEREFORE, the appealed RESOLUTIONS, dated

February 15, 2000, and May 22, 2000, respectively, of the
Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.

Puno, (J., Chairman), I concur in the result.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., On leave.
Resolutions affirmed.
Note.—Factual issues may not be raised in a petition for

review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court except when
they conflict with those of the trial court. (First Nationwide
Assurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 589
[1999])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

C13.15 Land Bank of The Philippines vs. de Leon, 388 SCRA 537, September 10, 2002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

C13.15 Land Bank of The Philippines vs. de Leon, 388 SCRA 537, September 10, 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 537

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

Remedial Law; Mode of Review; A petition for review, not an

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decisions of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The petitioners-appellees Arlene de Leon and Bernardo de Leon

Land Use Area Value/hectare Total/Land

or an aggregate amount of P2,491,731.65, which was again

In a Petition dated October 27, 1994, filed with the

1 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo Brawner and concurred in by

VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 539

in the area, petitioners-appellees asked the court, among

In due time the court rendered a summary judgment on December

a. P1,260,000.00 for the 16.69 hectares of riceland;

Within the time allowed, respondent-appellant filed a Motion4

On March 17, 1998, the Department of Agrarian Reform

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is

compensation based on the selling price of palay at 213.00 per

Thereafter, on February 15, 2000, the Fourth (4th) Division

4 Rollo, pp. 7-8.

540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(CA-G.R. CV No. 60365), in a resolution dated February 15,

In dismissing the ordinary appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 60365)

All these notwithstanding LBP does not stand to lose anything at

Petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration but the

IN RULING THAT SECTION 60 OF RA 6657 PROVIDES THE

VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 541

WHICH EXPRESSLY MANDATES THAT THE RULES OF

IN NOT RECOGNIZING THAT SECTION 61 OF RA 6657

IN DECLARING THAT THE SUPREME COURT MERELY

IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER,

The case at bar requires an interpretation of Sections 60

Section 60. Appeals.—An appeal may be taken from the decision

10 Rollo, pp. 24-25.

542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Respondent spouses point to Section 60 of RA 6657 to

Sec. 2. Modes of Appeal.—

(a) Ordinary appeal.—The appeal to the Court of Appeals in

of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or

Petitioner LBP, in its bid to maintain the legitimacy of its

VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 543

of appeal should be adopted. There is no room for a

11 Section 1. Scope.—This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments

544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

method of elevating to the Court of Appeals decisions of

What is indisputable is that Section 60 expressly regards a petition

13 The Circular is entitled “Prescribing the Rules Governing Appeals to

VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 545

Third, far from being in conflict, Section 61 of RA 6657 can

provide the details on how the petition for review shall be

14 Section 5(5), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.

546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

special procedure. Subject to constitutional limitations, the

a particular process specifically governing agrarian courts.

15 Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. Philippine Export Processing Zone, 349

VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 547

WHEREFORE, the appealed RESOLUTIONS, dated

Panganiban and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.

Note.—Factual issues may not be raised in a petition for

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

You might also like