THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 189290, November 29, 2017
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU, REGION VII, AND NOEL C. EMPLEO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, Petitioners, v. O.G. HOLDINGS CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MR. FREDERICK L. ONG, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MARTIRES, J.:
At the urging of the Republic, for review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Decision2 and the Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 02530, dated 11 June 2009 and 10 August 2009, respectively, whereby the appellate court nullified and set aside the Orders dated 6 July 20064 and 7 February 2007,5 of petitioner, the Environmental Management Bureau, Region 7 (EMB-Region 7), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), in EIA Cases Nos. VII-2006-06-019 and VII-2007-02-010.6 With the orders, petitioner suspended the 06-019 and VII-2007-02-010. 6 With the orders, petitioner suspended the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) it had previously issued to the beach resort project of respondent O.G. Holdings Corporation (O.G. Holdings).7 The suspension was triggered by respondent's violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1586, or the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System, having failed to comply with a condition set forth in the certificate. With the suspension, petitioner effectively prohibited the operations and further development of the beach resort. The CA ruled that this was in grave abuse of discretion.
We required a comment8 and a reply.9 The parties complied.10
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
(07 02 07-26 0226 402)
The ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region VII hereby grants this ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE (ECC) to PANGLAO ISLAND NATURE RESORT CORPORATION for its Beach Resort project located in Barangay Bingag, Dauis, Panglao Island, Bohol after complying with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements pursuant to P.D. 1586.
This Certificate is being issued subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Certificate is issued as one of the requirements for any permit issuances by other concerned agencies and is valid only for the beach resort project which covers a land area of three point zero seven zero nine (3.0709) hectares covered by OCT No. 75531 consisting of the following facilities/amenities;2. That it shall be the responsibility of the proponent to secure the necessary permits/clearances and coordinate with concerned agencies to include, but not limited to the following:
- Thirteen (13) units bungalows;
- Seven (7) units duplex cottage;
- Three (3) units quadruplex cottages;
- Swimming pool;
- Lobby and Restaurant;
- Library and Function Room;
- Gazebo and Fitness Gym; and
- Two-hundred (200) square meter man-made island in the foreshore area.
2.1. Department of Health (DOH)-Region 7 and/or Municipal Health Office on provision of sewage treatment facilities and Sanitary Permits; 2.2. DENR-PENRO/CENRO on Foreshore Lease/Other Lawful Purposes Permit in case of any development in the foreshore area; 2.3. Municipal Engineer's Office on Drainage Clearance taking into consideration the provision of catch basins to prevent siltation/turbidity of seawater; 2.4. Municipal Building Official on Structural Stability and Building Permit; 2.5. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council Clearance, for development on-shore; 2.6. Municipal Government on Solid Waste Management, which shall effectively implement on solid waste management scheme, segregation and recycling of solid waste prior to disposal in a manner that does not create nuisance or land pollution.
That it shall be the responsibility of the respective government agencies to monitor the herein stated permits/clearances;
3. That the project proponent shall be held responsible [for] damages incurred to life, property, and environment brought about by the implementation of the project. Aggrieved parties shall be justly and timely compensated. Likewise, the proponent shall set aside One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 100,000.00) representing as Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF) for any environmental impacts arising from the project implementation. This shall be maintained all throughout the duration of the project;
4. That buffer strip of appropriate tree species either in the form of tree parks or landscaping should be planted on any applicable areas and shall be maintained all throughout the duration of the project;
5. That overflow septic tanks from cottages should be pumped to the Centralized Sewage Treatment Facility and effluent should conform with the standards set forth in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. 984;
6. That a marine study should be conducted within the primary impact area and a report should be submitted to this Office thirty (30) days from receipt of this Certificate;
7. That information signs prohibiting coral collection should be posted on strategic locations of the project area;
8. That any expansion from the existing approved operation shall be subject to [other] EIA requirements;
9. That the project shall exit the coverage of ElS System once all the conditions have been complied with, and henceforth all regulatory activities shall be conducted by those regulatory agencies concerned, to include but not limited to those that are indicated in condition No. 2 of this Certificate. EMB, DENR-Region 7 shall be furnished a copy of the Monitoring Inspection Report of the said agencies;
10. That an on-the-spot monitoring may be conducted by DENRPENRO concerned and/or EMB-Region VII anytime in coordination with concerned groups;
11. That transfer of ownership of this project carries the same conditions as contained in this Certification for which written notification should be made by herein grantee to this Office within fifteen (15) days from such transfer; and
THIS ECC SHOULD NOT BE MISCONSTRUED AS A PERMIT, RATHER A SET OF CONDITIONALITIES WHICH SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY THE PROJECT PROPONENT IN ALL STAGES OF THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION IN ORDER TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS [ON] THE ENVIRONMENT.
Non-Compliance [with] any of the above stipulations will be sufficient cause for the suspension or cancellation of this Certificate and/or imposition of a fine in an amount not to exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for every violation thereof, at the discretion of this Office (Section 9 of P.D. 1586).
Given this 26th day of July 2002.
Recommending Approval:Thereafter, O.G. Holdings proceeded to develop and orserate the project, incurring an unspecified "millions of pesos" in the process.15
BIENVENIDO L. LIPAYON
Regional Director
Conforme:
FREDERICK L. ONG
President and General Manager
WHEREFORE, viewed from the light of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 6.0 (b) of DAO 96-37, the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC 07 01 04-03 0054 402) issued to Panglao Island Nature Resort is SUSPENDED for failure of the proponent to submit foreshore lease agreement and/or permit from the Philippine Reclamation Authority for the foreshore area of the project.In a letter dated 14 July 2006, O.G. Holdings moved for reconsideration. It pleaded that the suspension of the ECC would hinder its application with the PRA, as it required an existing ECC for the special registration of the man-made island.35
The proponent is directed to CEASE AND DESIST from undertaking project expansion and other developments within the project area.
The Chief of the Environmental Impact Assessment Division or his duly authorized representative is directed to implement this Order within seventy-two (72) hours and to submit report within forty-eight (48) hours from its execution stating the proceedings taken thereon.
SO ORDERED.(Sgd.) ALAN C. ARRANGUEZ
OIC, Regional Director
We painstakingly reviewed the records as well as laws, rules and regulations in order to judiciously resolve the case. As per record, the proponent has not secured yet a tenurial instrument from the DENR nor has a permit from the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA). To date, proponent has failed to submit necessary permit/clearance relevant to the foreshore area. From the date of the issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) until today, a considerable length of time of more than two (2) years had lapsed for the proponent to process and secure such permit. The proponent has made a written commitment several times to comply [with] the same but it was not rectified and complied [with]. The act of continuous violation can be interpreted as seeming misrepresentation or deliberate intent to thwart the rules. The same should be taken against the proponent. The provision of Section 6.0 (b) of DENR Administrative Order No. 96-37 otherwise known as the implementing rules of EIS System Act punishes violation of ECC conditions. Considering the infraction of the proponent through the years, it would be fitting to impose a stiffer penalty. Further, the construction of the guardhouse and the laying of its foundation within the foreshore area is an apparent violation of the previous order of this Office and DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30. Finally, in view of the suspension of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), the project is technically operating without an ECC. Under existing policy, a project without an ECC is prohibited from further implementing/operating the same. However, the Office in the spirit of due process, gives respondent proponent the opportunity to submit the required tenurial instrument over the foreshore area in compliance [with] the ECC condition, and other pertinent documents which will be made as the basis for the imposition of appropriate penalty including the cessation of project operation.In fine, the order stated that unless O.G. Holdings submit a "tenurial instrument for the foreshore area," e.g., a foreshore lease agreement, within the specified seventy-two hours, the ECC for the Panglao Island Nature Resort Corporation would be suspended immediately, with the suspension resulting in the disallowance of the operations and further development of the resort.
WHEREFORE, viewed from the light of the foregoing, this Office orders respondent proponent to submit the required tenurial instrument for the foreshore area and other documents relevant thereto within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt hereof, subject to the evaluation and review of this Office. If found compliant, the Order suspending the efficacy of the ECC will be lifted, however, if the documents will be found insufficient, the CEASE AND DESIST ORDER (CDO) will be implemented immediately by this Office.
The Chief of the Environmental Impact Assessment Division or his duly authorized representative is directed to implement this Order within seventy two (72) hours and to submit report within forty eight (48) hours from its execution stating the proceedings taken thereon.
SO ORDERED.(Sgd.) ALAN C. ARRANGUEZ
OIC, Regional Director
In effect, while initially Respondents [EMB-Region 7 and Arranguez] were open to admitting the PRA permit as substitute compliance for the foreshore lease agreement, they (respondents) have nevertheless subsequently made it impossible for Petitioner to secure the same since it has suspended its ECC instead of waiting for the processing and release of the PRA permit. In short, Respondents demand something from Petitioner but at the same time have made it impossible for Petitioner to comply with the same by putting obstacles in every step of the way in Petitioner's effort to comply with its impossible condition.45In fine, the petition for certiorari concluded that EMB-Region 7 and Arranguez acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction in suspending the subject ECC.
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The orders dated July 6, 2006 and February 7, 2007 issued by OIC, Regional Director, Alan Arranguez, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby relieved of complying with condition No. 2.2, and in lieu thereof, to submit proof of registration of the reclaimed off-shore area as soon as it has been granted by the PRA in due course.46The CA agreed with O.G. Holdings that it would be unreasonable to require exhaustion of administrative remedies in the case. It characterized Condition No. 2.2 of the ECC as "presently unattainable"47 and the suspension of the ECC as arbitrary.48 EMB-Region 7 and Arranguez, the appellate court held, had thus erred in suspending the ECC. Such error was no mere error of judgment, but of jurisdiction, and more so because the suspension also rendered futile O.G. Holdings' pending application with the PRA.49 The CA said: "[P]etitioner [O.G. Holdings] was abruptly robbed of its opportunity to comply therewith within the legal parameters afforded by applicable laws on the matter."50
Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that condition No. 2.2 of the ECC may be dispensed with in view of the fact that the islet for which respondents sought the petitioner to secure a tenurial document, is, as found by Deputy Public Land Inspector Alfredo Galarido, within an OFFSHORE AREA and not on FORESHORE AREA; hence, for all legal intents, there is no need to secure the required foreshore lease.The appellate court observed that even if it were to be assumed, for the sake of argument, that the man-made island was a foreshore development, securing a lease or permit for the same would still not be possible, given the municipal proscription against such developments. On O.G. Holding's application with the PRA, the CA then declared that such application was made in O.G. Holding's "desire to comply" with Condition No. 2.2; with the PRA application cast in such light, the CA concluded that it was "unjust and inequitable" to insist on a foreshore lease for the beach resort project even after its ECC had been suspended. Finally, the CA stressed that millions of pesos had been spent on the Panglao Island Nature Resort.
The definition of the term "FORESHORE LAND" as discussed in the case of Republic vs. CA, et al, is instructive, thus:The strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and that is alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide." [Sic] (Words and Phrases, "Foreshore")"A strip of land margining a body of water (as a lake or stream); the part of a seashore between the low-water line usually at the seaward margins of a low-tide terrace and the upper limit of wave wash at high tide usually marked by a beach scarp or berm" (Webster's Third New International Dictonary.)"
A perusal of the records would clearly show that, indeed, the islet or the man-made island is found on the offshore area fronting the resort, as can be clearly seen in the pictures attached to the records. Off-shore as defined in Webster dictionary refers to seaward or at a distance from the shore. [citations omitted]
- A writ of certiorari will not lie in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.
- Factual Issues are not proper in a petition for certiorari.
Section 6. AppealO.G. Holdings thus had the opportunity to file an administrative appeal on the suspension of the beach resort project's ECC, beginning with the Office of the EMB Director. Indeed, the administrative machinery afforded even an appeal to the Office of the President, but O.G. Holdings did not avail of such.
Any party aggrieved by the final decision on the ECC/CNC applications may, within 15 days from receipt of such decision, file an appeal on the following grounds:
a. Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the deciding authority, or
b. Serious errors in the review findings.
The DENR may adopt alternative conflict/dispute resolution procedures as a means to settle grievances between proponents and aggrieved parties to avert unnecessary legal action. Frivolous appeals shall not be countenanced.
The proponent or any stakeholder may file an appeal to the following:
Deciding Authority Where to file the appeal EMB Regional Office Director Office of the EMB Director EMB Central Office Director Office of the DENR Secretary DENR Secretary Office of the President
The records show that the petitioner failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. At the time RD Lipayon denied the petitioner's application for the CNC, Administrative Order No. 42 dated November 2, 2002 had just vested the authority to grant or deny applications for the ECC in the Director and Regional Directors of the EMB. Notwithstanding the lack of a specific implementing guideline to what office the ruling of the EMB Regional Director was to be appealed, the petitioner could have been easily guided in that regard by the Administrative Code of 1987, which provides that the Director of a line bureau, such as the EMB, shall have supervision and control over all division and other units, including regional offices, under the bureau. Verily, supervision and control include the power to "review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units." Accordingly, the petitioner should have appealed the EMB Regional Director's decision to the EMB Director, who exercised supervision and control over the former.66 [citations omitted]Certainly, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies may be disregarded in certain instances;67 as has been noted, O.G. Holdings claimed before the appellate court that four exceptions existed in its case to prevent the doctrine from being applied to its petition for certiorari. Yet in the petition for certiorari, we observe that O.G. Holdings failed to discuss, let alone prove, how public interest had any bearing in its case. Neither did it sufficiently prove how the suspension of the subject ECC would have caused irreparable injury. On this score, O.G. Holdings merely alleged that cancelled guest bookings, allegedly due to the suspension of the project's ECC, would harm its economic well-being as well as that of its employees and the Province of Bohol. Indeed, O.G. Holdings did not even present proof that the vaunted cancellations were in fact done; and it failed to describe in monetary terms the alleged losses from said cancellations.
Petitioner's Resort is located atop a cliff facing the Bohol Strait and Maribojoc Bay, at the foot of such cliff is a very little foreshore area which makes any permanent development in said area not only unsuitable, but also impractical. Besides, Municipal Ordinance No. 03-1991 of the Municipality of Dauis, where the Resort is located, prohibits any foreshore development in the Municipality. For these reasons, Petitioner has never made any development in the foreshore area within the Resort. Since the requirement under Condition No. 2.2 of Petitioner's ECC, that is-to secure a foreshore lease/other lawful purposes permit becomes operative only once Petitioner should make "any development in the foreshore area," there is obviously no need for Petitioner to comply with said requirement since as stated earlier, Petitioner has never made any permanent development in the foreshore area of its Resort. [underlining provided]69Elsewhere in the petition, O.G. Holdings described the man-made island as an "islet,"70 whereas E11B-Region 7 had identified it in the subject ECC as an "island."71 O.G. Holdings' claim that it has "never made any development in the foreshore area" also flies in the face of E118-Region 7's own finding, stated in its 7 February 2007 order, that O.G. Holdings had constructed a guardhouse and had laid its foundation within the foreshore area of the resort.72
In a special civil action for certiorari, under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, factual issues may not be brought before us. Here petitioner's submission, however, shows that he is raising issues concerning alleged errors and misapprehensions of facts committed by the Court of Appeals. These are not correctible by certiorari under Rule 65. The only question that may be raised in a petition for certiorari is whether the respondent has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not the office of a writ of certiorari to correct errors of fact or law which the lower court may have committed. An error of judgment committed by a court in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction is not the same as grave abuse of discretion.The CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess ofjurisdiction in the suspension of the subject ECC.
With this penalizing law in existence, there is no basis to rule that EMB-Region 7 and Arranguez had acted in excess or lack of jurisdiction. We consider, also, that EMB-Region 7 had issued several notices of violations to O.G. Holdings before it came to the lawful decision to suspend the subject ECC for its noncompliance with a condition. This indicates a considerable effort to resolve the violation judiciously and prudently, without automatically resorting to the penalty provided therefor.Section 9
Penalty for Violation
Any person, corporation or partnership found violating Section 4 of this Decree, or the terms and conditions in the issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate, or of the standards, rules and regulations issued by the National Environmental Protection Council pursuant to this Decree shall be punished by the suspension or cancellation of his/its certificate and/or a fine in an amount not to exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.000) for every violation thereof, at the discretion of the National Environmental Protection Council.
8.3 Amending an ECCO.G. Holdings should thus have brought its concerns over Condition No. 2.2 to the attention of this administrative machinery, and should have brought it at the first instance, or upon the issuance of the ECC in 2002. That it did not do so again indicates the prematurity of its petition for certiorari, and reflects badly on the appellate court, which expressly "opined" in the decision under review that Condition No. 2.2 "may be dispensed with."81 On this note, we also observe, that about five years had lapsed from the issuance of the ECC before its suspension. All that time, it appears that the beach resort project had been tolerated to operate without a foreshore lease agreement or permit.
Requirements for processing ECC amendments shall depend on the nature of the request but shall be focused on the information necessary to assess the environmental impact of such changes.
8.3.1. Requests for minor changes to ECCs such as extension of deadlines for submission of post-ECC requirements shall be decided upon by the endorsing authority.
8.3.2. Requests for major changes to ECCs shall be decided upon by the deciding authority.
8.3.3. For ECCs issued pursuant to an IEE or IEE checklist, the processing of the amendment application shall not exceed thirty (30) working days; and for ECCs issued pursuant to an EIS, the processing shall not exceed sixty (60) working days. Provisions on automatic approval related to prescribed timeframes under AO 42 shall also apply for the processing of applications to amend ECCs.
Endnotes:
1 Petition for Review on Certiorari, Rollo, pp. 19-46.
2Rollo, pp. 50-65.
3 Id. at pp. 68-70.
4 Id. at pp. 71-73.
5 Id. at pp. 74-76.
6 Id. at pp. 71-76.
6 Id. at 71-76.
7 Id. at 84-89.
8 Id. at 235, Resolution dated 23 November 2009.
9 Id. at 282.
10 Id. at 236-253 (Comment); Id. at pp. 290-305 (Reply).
11 Id. at 83.
12 Id. at 257.
13 Id. at 83-84.
14 Id. at 257-258.
15 Id. at 86.
16 Id. at 74.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 259.
20 Id. at 258.
21 Id. at 254.
22 Id. at 259.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 196 and 198.
25 Id. at 74.
26 Id. at 71.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id. at 72.
30 Id. at 75.
31 Id. at 270.
32 Id. at 72.
33 Id. at 255, Per Accreditation No. R-AA-169-2006.
34 Id. at 71-73, Docketed as EIA Case No. VII-2006-06-019.
35 Id. at 90.
36 Id. at 75.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 74-76, Docketed as VII-2007-02-010.
39 Id. at 188-215.
40 Id. at 188.
41 Id. at 209-213.
42 Id. at 80.
43 Id. at 76.
44 Id. at 83.
45 Id. at 99.
46 Id. at 64.
47 Id. at 58.
48 Id. at 62.
49 Id. at 59.
50 Id.
51 Id.
52 Id. at 63.
53 Id. at 60.
54 Id. at 59.
55 Id. at 59-60.
56 Id. at 29.
57 Id. at 30.
58Audi AG v. Mejia, 555 Phil. 348, 353 (2007); cited in Republic rep. by the Privatization andManagement Office v. Pantranco North Express, Inc., 682 Phil. 186, 193 (2012).
59Villena v. Rupisan, 549 Phil. 146, 158 (2007).
60 The exceptions are: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon by the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
61Rollo, p. 81; Paragraph 6 of the Petition for Certiorari.
62Cf. Castro v. Gloria, 415 Phil. 645, 651 (2001); cited in Estrada et al. v. CA and Bacnotan Cement, 484 Phil. 730, 739 (2004).
63Cf. Paat v. CA, 334 Phil. 146, 153 (1997); cited in Estrada et al. v. CA and Bacnotan Cement, 484 Phil. 730, 739-740 (2004).
64Cf. Republic v. Lacap, 546 Phil. 87, 96-97 (2007); cited in Special People, Inc. Foundation v. Canda et al., 701 Phil. 365, 378 (2013).
65 701 Phil. 365-387 (2013).
66 Id. at 378-379.
67 723 Phil. 546, 557 (2013); The exceptions are: (1) when there is a violation of due process; (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question; (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned; (5) when there is irreparable injury; (6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied and assumed approval of the latter; (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable; (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim; (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings; (10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention; (12) when no administrative review is provided by law; (13) where the rule of qualified political agency applies; and (14) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot.
68Negros Oriental Electric Cooperative 1 v. the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment et al., 409 Phil. 767, 777 (2001).
69Rollo, pp. 97; Pages 19-21 of the Petition for Certiorari.
70 Id. at 87.
71 Id. at 257.
72 Id. at 76.
73People v. Nazareno, 612 Phil. 753, 769 (2009); cited in Ysidoro vs. Hon. Leonardo-de Castro et al., 681 Phil. 1, 17 (2012).
74Quiambao v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 16, 28 (2005).
75 G.R. No. 144459, 3 February 2004.
76Rollo, p. 75 (see p. 2 of 7 February 2007 Order); Rollo, p. 196-197 (see p. 9 of Petition for Certiorari).
77Rollo, p. 262.
78Beluso v. Commission on Elections, 635 Phil. 436, 443 (2010); cited Spouses Castillo v. CA (4th Division) et al., 680 Phil. 334, 341 (2012).
79Estrada v. Hon. Desierto, 487 Phil. 169, 182 (2004); citing Duero v. CA, 424 Phil 12, 20 (2002); and cited in Spouses Castillo vs. CA (4th Division) et al., 680 Phil. 334, 341 (2012).
80Rollo, p. 80.
81 Id. at 59.
82 Id. at 71-73.