Republic of the Pbitippines Supreme Court somigoatge ue pagmet Slaila AUG 28 2000 ‘THIRD DIVISION OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY G.R.No. 219062 OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO, Petitioner, Present LEONEN, J, Chairperson, GESMUNDO, versus: CARANDANG, ZALAMEDA, and GAERLAN, JU ANTONIGIA A. LLAUDER, Promulgacea: espondent. January 29,, 2020 a Menctar x DECISION LEONEN, J: Government employees must perform their duties with utmost care and responsibility, and must be held accountable for their actions at all times. “There is gross neglect of duty when one’s actions, even if not ‘willfully or intentionally done to eause harm, are characterized by want of ‘even slight care and a blatant indifference to the consequences of one's actions to other persons! This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorati filed by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao (Office of the Deputy Ombudsman). It asssils the Decision’? and Resolution’ of the Court of fh © Off of he mbtimon vB n, 75 PL 263 Wat Fok The Dec 8, 204 Dison i CALGR SP No 3360-MIN was pened by ‘Asoc Jie Ea BCs a uncured ny Assos lp), lad 203) (Pr. Benin, et iviDesision 2 GR.No, 219062 Appeals, which modified its findings by lowering the administrative offenses committed by Antonieta lauder (Llauder) from gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, with a suspension of six (6) months, to just simple neglect of duty, with three (3) ‘months? suspension, Llauder worked atthe Oifice of the Civil Registrar in ligan City as sn Assistant registration officer, alongside Georgette Dacup (Dacup), the City Civil Registrar, and Norma Aranton (Aranton), the officerin-charge of the Marriage License Registration Division. (On February 6, 2006, Benjamin K. Edmilao Tl (Eémilao) filed @ Complaint* against all three of them before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, They were accused of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for willfully and maliciously assisting, and conspiring to register a spurious marriage certificate between Edmilao and ‘one Mylain S. Chu (Chu)? Edmilao alleged that sometime in 2002, his aunt, Mary Ann Busico (Busico), requested him to sign an application for marriage license for “game play” so that Chu, her travel agency’s client, could go abroad. Edmilao acceded to Busico's request since she allegedly promised that the application would not be registered with the City Registrar's Office* Only later would he discover that a marriage certificate had indeed been registered with the Civil Registry of Iligan City? Edmilao pointed out how under the marriage certificate, he and Chu ‘got married on July 30, 1997 before Reverend Father Gervacio Flores at the Holy Child Parish Philippine Independent Church in Iligan City. It was stated at the back of the certificate that the solemnizing officer’s oath appeared to have been notarized by one Atty. Alfredo R. Busico (Atty ‘Aliredo) on June 11, 1997, 49 days before the supposed ceremony took late.” ‘On August 8, 2002, Edmila further alleged that Aranton transmitted the application for delayed registration of marriage certificate to the City Prosecutor of ligan City. Later, on August 15, 2002, Llauder, on behalf of © 1d m4 The Region ed am 6205 war pened Wy Asie use Evid. Conte tidus by Anis es Ede oe thon NS oeDecision 3 GR. No, 219062 Mylain C. Edmilao, signed the application requesting the City Civil Registrar to indorse the newly registered documents to the Office of the Civil Registrar General of Manila forthe issuance of its security papers and authentication. ‘The marriage contract was subsequenlly registered with the Civil Registry of Hligan City." Later, in Civil Case No. 6541, the ligan City Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, declared the spurious marriage between Edmilao and Chu to be nonexistent and void? In his Complaint now, Edmilao alleged that Llauder, Dacup, and ‘Aranton acted in bad faith for conspiring with Busico and her husband, Atty Alfredo—whom Edmilao claimed was related to Llauder—in falsifying the ‘mattiage certificate. As the City Civil Registra, Dacup was impleaded under the prineiple of command responsibility? while Llauder and Aranton were impleaded for receiving and processing the registration of the marriage cerificate.* All three (3) accused denied the charges against thet, In her Counter-Affidavit, Dacup stated that applications for delayed ‘epistraton of marsiages do not require her office’s approval and are instead processed in the Matriage Division.* For her part, Atanton averred that itis her ministerial function as a registration officer of the Civil Registry of Higan City to accept the marriage certificate and its supporting documents presented for registration without determining ther intrinsic validity" Meanwhile, in her Counter-Affidavit/ Answer,” Llauder denied having anything to do withthe falsifeation or forgery since she did not participate in any act related to the alleged marriage, save for receiving and placing a registry number on the marriage certficale, As to the discrepancy in the dates, she also claimed that she had nothing to do with it !® Lauder added thet there was nothing imegular with her signing on behalf of Chu for the issuance of the security paper on delayed registration, as this was common practice at their office." In his Comment, Edmilao claimed that Dacup, Llauder, and Aranton eo siness PereDesson 4 © No, 219062 ‘were at fault for receiving and processing 2 marriage cenificate without requiring affidavits showing that: (a) the partes have lived for atleast five (6) years; and (b) at least one (I) of them belongs to the religious sect of the solemnizing officer. Their acts, he alleged, violated Administrative Order No. I, series of 1993, of the Office of the Civil Registar General Moreover, Edmilag insisted that Llnuder failed to notice the discrepancies between the date of solemnization and notarizaton of the document. On March 19, 2007, the Oifice of the Deputy Ombudsman issued a Decision” finding Llauder and Aranton guilty of gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for their failure to ‘observe compliance with Administrative Order No. I of the Office of the Civil Registrar General However, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman stated that Edmilo ‘was not completely blameless as he consented to the “game play” designed by his aunt. Accordingly, it stated that Llouder and Aranton should not be rade to suffer the full force of law.2” Meanwhile, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman absolved Dacup of liability, finding that “she had nothing to do™ withthe registration of the marriage certificate The dispositive portion ofthe Decision read: WHEREFORE, this Office finds herein respondents Arann and Lauder guilty of the adninisuative charges of Groat Neglet of Duty and Condit Prejudicial To The Best Ineest of Public Service, and ae hereby noted the polly of Six (6) months Suspension, “The charge against espondent Dau is here dismissed fr lack ofevidence. Moreover, to prevent a similar casein te future the Office ofthe (Civil Registar General, Manila is hereby otdered to also look int this Iatter being a par oftheir regultory pov ‘The Honorable Mayor of ligan Cly is herby. ised to Implement the aforementoned sanction against respondents Nowia ‘Aaion and Antonieta Llaudes, A report on the inplementation of the ‘aid sation aginst herein espendeas shoul be submited to this OMe within ten (10) days afte the iniplemennion thereat. So DECIDED. Both Llauder and Aranton moved for reconsideration.2* aa, leas, caret ADesision 5 GR.No. 219062 In her Motion for Reconsideration, Llauder reiterated that since the City Prosecutor had recommended the application's approval, she had no choice but to indorse the application forthe issuance and authentication of its security papers.” (On July 28, 2008, a Notice of Suspension was issued by Higan City Mayor Lawrence Cruz, suspending Llander and Aranten from office from July 29, 2008 until January 31, 2009.2" On August 18, 2008, Edmilao filed an Affidavit of Desistance, asking, ‘that his Complaint against Llauder, Aranton, and Dacup be withdrawn, He stated that he was remorseful for filing the case when there was no proof of ‘any malice on thei part. In light of this, Llauder filed a Motion to Dismiss the administrative ease on August 20, 2008. Nevertheless, Llauder’s Motion to dismiss the case, along with her and Aranion’s Motions for Reconsideration, was denied by the Office ofthe Deputy Ombudsman in its October 16, 2008 Order” Only Llauder filed a Petition for Review! before the Court of Appeals. She reiterate that she did not go beyond her duties and functions, When the marriage certificate was presented by an unidentified woman for delayed registration, she indorsed it to Aranton. Aranton then indorsed it to the City Prosecutor, who then returned it with a favorable review." lauder emphasized that she only entered the martiage certificate in the books and assigned it its registry number after the City Prosecutor's favorable review and evaluation. She further contended that her duty as an assistant registration officer is ministerial and that she had no authority to ‘overturn a prosecutor's favorable recommendation.” Besides, Llauder claimed, Edmilao's Affidavit of Desistance should have had the effeet of withdrawing, superseding, and reversing the factual averments in the Complaint, and should have caused the dismissal of the administrative case against her.”Decision 6 GR. No. 219062 On December 8, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued a Decision’ affirming with modification the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman’s Decision, ‘The Court of Appeals first rejected Llauder’s claim that Edmilao's Affidavit of Desistance should have warranted the case's dismissal, noting that administrative complaints are imbued with public interest and “should not be made to depend on the whims and eaprices ofthe complainants.” The Court of Appeals then pointed out that while a spurious mariage certificate was registered, Llauder was only liable for simple neglect of duty, singe the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman failed to show that her breach of duty was flagrant and palpable. Tt also held that Llauder was not liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service finding that her acts did not cause undue prejudice to the government of the Civil Registry of Higan City.” ‘The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision rea: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the aeiled decision and er of the Ombudsman aro hereby AFFIRMED vith MODIFICATION in that Liner is found guilty of simple nealect of day only an meted the pealty of suspension for thee inns without pay since this et tn otense ne hy. eas of serves in the Goverment. SO ORDERED." ‘The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman moved for partial reconsideration, but the Motion was denied for lack of merit in the Court of Appeals’ June &, 2015 Resolution.” ‘On August 20, 2015, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari™ against lauder. On November 23, 2015, this Court required respondent t0 comment ‘on the Petition. However, no comment was filed, On June 22, 2016, this Court required Any. Cancio Nicanor M, Guibone (Atty. Guibone), respondent’s counsel, to comply with the November 23, 2015 Resolution and to show cause why he should aot be wae,Decision 7 GR.No.219062 isciplinarly dealt with or held in contempt for his failure to comply in the First place.” On September 30, 2016, Atty. Guibone filed a Compliance," stating that he repeatedly attempted to contact respondent through text messages and calls, but failed. He stated that upon receiving the show cause order, he ‘again attempted to contact her, io no avail. Auy. Guibone instead attached to his Compliance the pleadings previously filed by respondent, so as to apprise this Court of her previous defenses* In a November 21, 2016 Resolution; this Court found Atty. Guibone's Compliance unsatisfactory, requiring him to exert more effort in ‘contacting respondent and to submit her conformity within 10 days from (On June 29, 2017, Atty. Guibone filed a second Compliance stating that he once again exerted earnest efforts to communicate with respondent ‘through text messages and calls, but to no avail, As a last resort, his sta Went to respondent’ lat known office address atthe Civil Registry of Higan City, from which he found out that respondent had already retied from {goverment service in the middle of 2016." On October 2, 2017, this Cour noted and accepted the second Compliance filed by Atty. Guibone and dispensed with the filing of respondent’ comment on this pettion.** In its Petition, petitioner argues that the Cour of Appeals erred in downgrading the offenses against respondent. It pointed out that she violated Administrative Order No. | of the Office of the Civil Registrar General when she received and accepted the application for delayed marriage registration and assigned ita registry number despite the lack of supporting documents. It maintains that respondent's disregard of the Administrative Order, coupled with her failure to notice the discrepancies on the mariage certificate submitted by Chu, cannot be regarded as simple neglect of duty.” ‘The sole issue for this Cour’s resolution is whether or not the Court ‘of Appeals erred in lowering the offense committed by respondent Antonieta, A. Llauder from gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best reed lea 78Decision ® interest of the service to simple neglect of duty, and downgrading her penalty of suspension from six (6) months to three (3) months ‘The Petition is meritorious. Although respondent is no longer in the public service, having retired in 2016, the propriety of the Court of Appeals Decision, which lowered the offense she committed and the penalty meted, must be discussed, It must be determined if respondent is entiled to a reimbursement of salaries and emoluments not paid to her during her six-month suspension, as provided under Rule Ill, Section 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the ‘Ombudsman, aS amended.” Section 7 provides: Section 7. Finliy and execution of decivion — Whese the respondent is absolved ofthe charge, and incase of conviction whee the Desally imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more thn one month, er fse equivalent to one month salary, te decision shal be fina, executor and ungppeaable. Tal ther cases, the deision Imay be appesled to the Court of Appeals ona verified psition for review under the requirements and conditions se oth in Role 43 ofthe Ries of ‘Cour, within fieen (18) days from zeceit of the writen Notice of the Decision or Order denying the motion for reconsideration. An appl shall nt sop the decision fom being exeeutery. Pr ate ‘he thal be considered os hevng been under preventive spendin nd Shall be pid he salary and such eter mands tha he i ot recene reason ofthe suspension or rman ‘A devsion of the Office ofthe Ombudsnin in administrative cases stall be executed as a mater of course, The Office ofthe Ombudsman Stall ensue tht the decison sll be silly enforced and propel? Jmplemented. The refusal or fae by any oficer witht jot cause 1 comply: with an order of the Office of the Ombudsnan to remove, Suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be aground for dieilinary ston gas sald fice. (Emphasis sapis) In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals lowered the offenses and penalty meted out to respondent. Justifying its modification of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsmian's Decision it state In this cass the tts complained of ennot be legally considered as sss negeet of duty. While it is te that Lisuder proceeded sith the registration ofthe spurious marriage without observing the applicable rules, howevee, We hold thatthe Ombudsman fled to show sien basis for concluding that such acts spayed by Llauer and he breach of Ay she commited were not of sich nate and deyree so ato be considered flagrant and yalpable. Nether ean Llanr be hel Viable for the oflense of conduet prejudicial 1 the bas interest of service the amend Admin Ont No. 17(20.Decision » GR.No. 219062 same aes didnot cause unde peice othe government or expose the system ofthe Local Civil Regist of ligan City to imei rsk Although We do not find LInuder guilty of gross nelect of duty, she is, however eld liable fr simple neglect f duly. Sinple noes of ‘uty is defined asthe fire to give proper attention toa tsk expected 'iom an employee resulting fom eter carelessness indifeence Here, “laude failed to ive proper atention to the tsk she was exposed to do ‘ven se filed comply with the applicable rules. Bs ies inay, she annot excuse er lapses fr non-compiianee hy the at that she relict on the prosecutor's prior recommendation to ive due couse’ to the pliaton fr late registation. Apart om the recommendation, Hauler ‘ould have Furber checked the documents on hand befor proceeding with regiration, thereby avoiding the present predicament, but she failed to do ‘This Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals that respondent was ‘only liable for simple neglect of duty. The records and the duly constituted rules of the Office of the Civil Registrar show that petitioner was correct in finding respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest ofthe serviee Administrative Order No, 1 of the Office of the Civil Registrar General states thatthe civil registrar isthe person or body charged by law for the recording of vital events and other documents affecting @ person's civil status. The Administrative Order takes pains in laying out the proper procedutes for the repistraton of one's life events, including his or her birth, ‘marriage, and death. The pertinent sections on delayed registration of ‘marriages provide: Rule 13. Pasting ofthe Pending Application, -(1) A nice othe public on te pending application for delayed resstation sll be posted inthe bulletin boud of the eitymunisipality fora period of not ese than ‘en (10) days. (2) tf ater en (10 dys, no one opposes the registration, the civil regia shall evalu the veracity ofthe Statements made in the requied ‘documents submited (2) AF after proper evaluation of all documents presented and investigation of the allegations catuined therein, the ‘convinced tha the event ally cured thin he ura ‘eqlsty office, and nding out that sd event was not estore, he shall ‘egitr the delayed pot tert 4) The Civil Registrar, in ll ease of delayed resistin of bith, eat and martag, sll copdvet en vestigation whenever an opposition is filed against it registration by taking the testimonies of the pris concerned and witesss the fort of questions and answers. AR investigation, the vil ropstor shall" forward. his. Rings, and 2 alin 8, Admini One No. 1199, Prin SemenDesision 10 GR.No. 219062 recommendations {0 the Office of the Civil Repstar-Gencral for apprerite ation (6) The Civil Regisar-Gencral may, afer review and proper ‘evaluation, deny or authorize the regisation, Rule 18. Duy 1 Fle a Comploi wit the Prorecotr's Office In every case of delayed repstaton, the civil registrar shall Sle a complaint with the city povinial prosecutors offs for appropriate faction under setion 17 of Act No. 3783. The ston ied in cou by ths [prosecutor aginst the ary for fir to register shal ot suspen ot the registration, nether should it be & ground for refusal by the evil registrar to reps the delayed report of bith, death or mariage or any regisvable document Rule 46. Delayed Regivration of Marriage ~ (1) Ia delayed regisation of marrige, te solermnizng office o he person reporting or presenting the manage certiieate for repstaton sall be required to ‘execute ad ile an afiavit in suppor ere, ttng the ext place and ate of marrage, the fet and ceamsancet surrounding the mariage andthe reason oF case ofthe ely (2) The submission ofthe aplication for mariage license bearing the date when the mariage iene ws sed excent for mariage exer ffom mariage licenses sal be requires, (2) Where the origina or duplicate copy of the cerifeste of Mariage could’ not be presented citer beeanse it was bum, lst or estoyed, & certification issued i leu thereof, by the church or ‘sclernizng officer indicating date of sid mariage based on tel roord Flog book shall be suficient poof of mirage andthe chi esta ray secept the same for registration. (4) Incase of doubt, the ei registrar may verify the autentcty ‘ofthe marsageceifiation by checking ftom the church recorog bok land the solemizing officer who performed the mariage and the etch ficial who ise the cetfestion ‘As seen in these provisions, an application forthe delayed registration ‘of a matriage certificate is required to be posted on the city bulletin board for 10 days to afford the public an opportunity to oppose it. Only after the 10-day posting period can the civil registrar evaluate the application, along, ‘with its supporting documents, and ascertain if there are any anomalies in the solemnization of the martiage or invaldities between the partes. After investigation, the findings shall be forwarded to the Registrar General who may, after review and proper evaluation, deny or authorize the registration, Aside from this, the person reporting the marriage must also submit an affidavit containing the date and place of the marriage, the factDecision " GR. No. 219062 surrounding the ceremony, and the reason behind its late registration, The marriage license should likewise be attached, or in its absence, an affidavit Proving thatthe couple is exempt from acquiring one, Yet, despite these clear instructions, both Aranton and respondent failed to review the application for registration of the marriage certificate submitted by Chu and merely relied on the Prosecutor's recommendation To begin with, they were wrong to immediately forward the application to the Office of the City Prosecutor, they should have suspected that it was bogus ftom the star, given the doubtful notarzation and the absolute absence of any other proof that the ceremony had happened. Moreover, there was no indication that they ensured that the posting requirements of & ‘pending application had been met. Respondent cannot hide behind the pretext that Aranton was the one in charge of applications for delayed registration. It does not excuse her ‘own negligence in assigning a registration number to Edmilao and Chu's ‘marriage certificate without asking for the submission of the required documents. As an assistant registration officer at the Civil Registry's Marriage Division, she had the duty to evaluate and check the application and its supporting documents before assigning it a registration number. ‘There had been numerous opportunities to for her to require the submission ‘of the required documents, but she failed todo sa Worse, respondent even signed the application for marriage registration on Chu's behalf to expedite the release of the certificate and security papers, despite the glaring lack of supporting documents, This was tn active disregard ofthe duly instituted rules of her office. In her defense, respondent argues thatthe registration of the marriage centiicate is a ministerial duty, claiming that she had no choice but to do it tlven the City Prosecutor's approval. 1k seems that respondent has an erroneous interpretation of what a ‘ministerial duty entails. This Court distinguished discretionary functions ‘tom ministerial duties in Sanson v. Barrios: Discretion, when applied to public futonaies, means a power or right conferred pon them. by lav of acting offal, under cerain circumstances, according to the dictates of thar own jodgments sad consciences, unconvolled by the judgments or conscionoos of others A purely inter aet or duty, n contadatineton fo a disereinal as ‘ne which an oficer ar wihunal performs ina given ste of facts, ih a preseribed manner, in obedience othe mandate of legal authority, without Tepid to or the exercise of his wm judgment, upon the peopity oF (2 Pal 1981930 Per Risa BreDession 2 GR No. 219062 limpopriety of the nc done. IF the law imposes a duty ypon public lle, and gives him the righ deeide ow or when the duly sll be Performed, such duy i discretionary and not miiseal. The day Ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of oficial discretion nor jdmeat™ (Citation mid) ‘Thus, although respondent's function as an assistant registtation officer is indeed ministerial, this does not mean that she must blindly approve all applications submitted to her office, It is ministerial in that when a properly accomplished application is presented before her accompanied by all the necessary documents, she has no choice but to approve and process the registration, Conversely, if the application filed is invalid or missing the required attachments, such as an affidavit of the contracting parties or a marriage licens, her duty i to deny the registration. Even if respondent was not tasked with determining if fraud was committed in the application for marriage certificate, it was her duty 10 demand that the supporting documents be present upon submission as a precaution to the registration ofa spurious document. In her Counter-Affidavi/Answer, respondent herself admitted that a piecemeal submission of the required documents was allowed in Circular No. 98-1 dated September 8, 1998:° Accordingly, she should have requested the submission of documents for the registration of the marriage certificate. Otherwise, she should have verified the marriage with the solemnizing officer or the church where the ceremony was purportedly held, as provided in Rule 46(4) of Administrative Order No. 1 (4) In case of douby, the civil registrar may verify the authenticity ofthe marriage corication by checking ftom the church recon/og book tnd the solemnizing officer who performed the mariage andthe hutch fica who issed the certifeation, cosh spunlent made no attempt to comply with the preseribed procedure or requirements As an assistant registration officer, respondent does not merely release identification cards or certifications. tis her duty t0 evaluate the records and martiage registrations that would have the effect of changing one’s civil status, carrying with it a multitude of repercussions. Knowing these, she should have exercised more diligence in the performance of her duties,Decision B GR.No, 219062 In Civil Service Commission v. Caiaeutan, gross neglect of duty was [Per Rees, Son Divi 2% Moma 601}. ee Fi DntDecision “4 GR. No.219062 Contrary to the Court of Appeals ruling, respondent's actions were detrimental tothe reputation of the Office of the Civil Registear and the civil service in general. It must be emphasized that Edmilao was foreed to initiate annulment proceedings before the Regional Trial Court and see it to fruition only to correct respondent's and Aranton’s mistakes, Edmilao may have had a hand in it by signing a piece of paper as “game play,” but the spurious marriage certificate would never have existed if not for Aranton and respondent's gross negligence and indifference in processing the application, ‘This sort of behavior is not what is expected of our government employees and is definitely not worthy ofthe trust repased onto them by the people, 1 is imperative for any employee, most especially those of the government, to exercise their duties with the utmost care and responsibilty. ‘This is especially rue for registration officers ofthe Civil Registy. A single mistake may entail a change in one's civil status and lead to unnecessary Iiigation, which is precisely what happened in this ease. Hence, petitioner Was correct in finding respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest ofthe service and meting her witha penalty of sx (6) months" suspension WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. This Court modifies the December 8, 2014 Decision and June 8, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP No. 03269-MIN and holds respondent Antonieta A. Llauder GUILTY of groas noglest of duty and conduct prejudicial to the interest of service SO ORDERED. ACGA.V-F. LEONEN p__ Associte Jstie ‘WE CONCUR: ay SESMNDO AssGciate lustice PART D.C Robi EDA Associate Justice Atbdsice JusticeDecision 5 GR. No. 219062 SAMUEL EE EAEREAN ‘Associate Justice ATTESTATION 1 attest thatthe conclusions inthe above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Cour’s Division _ RVICAINE LEONEN 2 ‘Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Anicle VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer ofthe opinion ofthe Cour's Division DIOSDADO\M. PERALTA Chied Justice