SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 132400. January 31, 2005.]

EDUARDO J. MARIÑO, JR., MA. MELVYN P. ALAMIS, and UST

FACULTY UNION , petitioners, vs . GIL GAMILLA, DUPONT ASERON and
JUSTINO CARDENAS , respondents.

DECISION

TINGA , J : p

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43701, 2 setting aside the order and the writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction issued by the lower court.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Sometime in May 1986, the UST Faculty Union (USTFU) entered into an initial
collective bargaining agreement with the University of Santo Tomas (UST) wherein UST
undertook to provide USTFU with a free o ce space at Room 302 of its Health Center
Building. 3
On 21 September 1996, the o cers and directors of USTFU scheduled a general
membership meeting on 5 October 1996 for the election of the union o cers. However,
respondent Gamilla and some faculty members led a Petition 4 with the Med-Arbitration
Unit of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) seeking to stop the holding of
the USTFU election. 5
Meanwhile, on 2 October 1996, Rev. Fr. Rodel Aligan, O.P., Secretary General of the
UST, issued a Memorandum to the Deans, Regents, Principals and Heads of Departments
regarding the holding of a faculty convocation on 4 October 1996. 6
On 4 October 1996, Med-Arbiter Tomas Falconitin issued a temporary restraining
order (TRO) in Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001, enjoining the holding of the election of the
USTFU o cers and directors. However, denying the TRO they themselves sought, Gamilla
and some of the faculty members present in the 4 October 1996 faculty convocation
proceeded with the election of the USTFU o cers. On the other hand, the scheduled
election for 5 October 1996 did not push through by virtue of the TRO. 7
In the succeeding week, on 11 October 1996, petitioners led with the DOLE a
petition for prohibition, injunction, with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order, 8 seeking to invalidate the election held on 4 October 1996.
HCDAcE

Two months later, on 4 December 1996, UST and USTFU, represented by Gamilla
and his co-o cers, entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for a period of
ve (5) years from 1 June 1996 up to 31 May 2001. The CBA was rati ed on 12 December
1996. 9
In another front, the Med-Arbiter issued a TRO dated 11 December 1996, enjoining
Gamilla and his fellow o cers to "cease and desist from performing any and all acts
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 pertaining to the duties and functions of the officers and directors" of USTFU. 1 0
On 27 January 1997, at around eleven in the morning (11:00 a.m.), respondents
Gamilla, Cardenas and Aseron, with some other persons, served a letter of even date on
petitioners Mariño and Alamis, demanding that the latter vacate the premises located at
Room 302, Health Center Building, UST — the O ce of USTFU. However, only the o ce
messenger was in the o ce at the time. After coercing the o ce messenger to step out
of the office, Gamilla and company padlocked the door leading to the union's office. 1 1
On 5 February 1997, petitioners led with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a
Complaint 1 2 for injunction and damages with a prayer for preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order over the use of the USTFU office.
At the 11 February 1997 hearing on the application for TRO before the trial court,
respondents through a consolidated motion to dismiss sought the dismissal of the
complaint on the ground of forum-shopping and prayed that the trial court suspend the
application for injunctive relief until it shall have resolved the motion to dismiss. 1 3
On the same date, Med-Arbiter Falconitin rendered a decision, 1 4 declaring the 4
October 1996 election and its results null and void ab initio. The decision was appealed to
the Bureau of Labor Relations which a rmed the same. 1 5 Respondents brought the
matter to this Court via a special civil action for certiorari. 1 6 The Court promulgated its
decision, 1 7 dismissing the petition on 16 November 1999.
On 3 March 1997, the RTC issued the assailed order, 1 8 to wit:
WHEREFORE, upon plaintiff's filing a bond in the amount of P50,000.00, let
a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issue requiring defendants their
representatives and agents or other persons acting in their behalf to remove the
padlocks on the door of the UST Faculty Union o ce located at Room 302,
Health Center Bldg., UST, España, Manila and to refrain from
preventing/disturbing in any manner whatsoever the plaintiffs in entering the said
premises.

In the meantime, defendants are hereby ordered to submit their answer to

the complaint within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof.

On 5 March 1997, after petitioners as plaintiffs therein had posted the requisite
bond, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. 1 9
On 19 March 1997, respondents led a Petition for Certiorari 2 0 before the Court of
Appeals, claiming that the orders dated 3 and 5 March 1997 were void ab initio for lack of
jurisdiction and on the ground that they were issued in violation of due process of law. 2 1
The Court of Appeals stated that the basic issue of the case was whether the RTC of
Manila had jurisdiction over the subject matter of Civil Case No. 97-81928. 2 2 It agreed
with respondents' disquisition that petitioners' cause of action in the complaint before the
trial court is inextricably linked and intertwined with the issue of who are the legitimate
o cers of the USTFU, which issue was then being litigated before the DOLE. The appellate
court held that Civil Case No. 97-81928 and Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-016 appear to be
the same, with the observation that the civil case merely "grew out" from the labor case. It
also cited the prohibition against the issuance of injunction in any case involving or
growing out of a labor dispute, unless otherwise provided by law. 2 3 It added that it would
have been more appropriate for the RTC to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the
subject case before issuing the assailed orders. 2 4 The dispositive portion of the decision
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED — and
the assailed order (dated March 3, 1997) and the writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction (dated March 5, 1997) SET ASIDE — and the respondent judge ordered
to DISMISS Civil Case No. 97-81928.

SO ORDERED. 2 5 (Emphasis in the original.)

Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration 2 6 was denied. Hence, this petition.

Petitioners assert that the RTC has jurisdiction to decide Civil Case No. 97-81928,
as the determination of the legality and propriety of padlocking the doors of the USTFU
o ce and preventing the free and unhampered ingress to and egress from the said
premises, as alleged in the complaint, are matters incapable of pecuniary estimation. 2 7
Moreover, they claim that the civil case was premised on causes of action belonging to the
USTFU which are to be resolved not by reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations
statutes. They stress that the causes of action involve a tortious act and the
corresponding claim for damages that are both governed by the civil law and fall under the
jurisdiction of regular courts. 2 8
Petitioners add that not all controversies involving members of the same union are
to be decided by the labor tribunal. They add that in the instant case, the pendency of the
labor case should not militate against the civil case they led since the criminal and civil
aspects of a violation of Article 241 of the Labor Code 2 9 can be litigated separately and
independently from the administrative aspect of a breach of the rights and conditions of
membership. 3 0
Anent the ruling of the Court of Appeals on the writ of injunction issued by the trial
court, petitioners state that Art. 254 of the Labor Code 3 1 on prohibition against
injunctions is not applicable to the instant case since the controversy cannot be
categorized as a labor dispute. They argue that the injunction was called for considering
that they "have rights to be protected and preserved," which however, "were violated,
invaded and trampled upon" by respondents through the acts complained of. 3 2
Petitioners claim that respondents were not denied their day in court when the trial
court did not resolve the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding with the hearing on the
application for injunctive order. According to them, respondents were given the chance to
present their evidence in support of their opposition to the injunction and TRO, but
respondents chose not to avail of this opportunity. 3 3
Lastly, they add that respondents Gamilla, Cardenas and Aseron had no right to act
for and in behalf of the USTFU for the following reasons, to wit: Gamilla's claim to the
USTFU presidency was declared non-existent by the labor tribunals; Cardenas was the
chief of the security force in the university and not a faculty member; and, Aseron was a
Barangay Chairman and not a member of the UST faculty. 3 4 Thus, petitioners claim that
USTFU was improperly included as petitioner in the petition 3 5 before the Court of Appeals.
Accordingly, petitioners assert that the Court of Appeals erred and gravely abused
its discretion when:
I. It ruled that the regional trial court had no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 97-
81928;
II. It ruled that Civil Case No. 97-81928 is a labor dispute cognizable by the DOLE;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 III. It granted the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 43701, set aside the
orders issued by the trial court, and ordered the dismissal of the civil case;

IV. It ruled that Art. 254 of the Labor Code is applicable to the matters involved in
Civil Case No. 97-81928;

V. It ruled that respondents were denied their day in court; and

VI. It ruled that the Motion for Reconsideration led in CA-G.R. SP No. 43701 was
pro-forma. 3 6

On the other hand, respondents maintain that the regional trial court had no
jurisdiction over the issue as to who has the right to use the union o ce because the same
is inextricably linked and intertwined with the issue as to who are the legitimate and duly
elected o cers of the USTFU, which was then the subject of another case before the
DOLE. 3 7 Furthermore, respondents insist that the trial court violated their right to due
process when it refused to determine the issue of jurisdiction before issuing its assailed
orders. 3 8 Respondents submit that the only issue in the instant petition is whether the RTC
has jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 97-81928. 3 9
There is merit in the petition but only in part.
Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the
allegations in the complaint 4 0 and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of
whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. 4 1
Central to the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is its adoption of
respondents' argument that the issue in Civil Case No. 97-81928 is "inextricably linked and
intertwined with the issue as to who are the lawful o cers of the USTFU," which is within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor; and that "the use of the union o ce is a
mere incident of the labor dispute." 4 2 Specifically, the Court of Appeals held:
. . . .The two cases (Civil Case No. 97-81928 and Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-
016) appear the same. While ostensibly, the complaint led with the trial court
was branded 'injunction and damages', the action challenged the legitimacy of
petitioners' election as o cers of the UST Faculty Union, with the plaintiff therein
(respondent herein) seeking to enjoin them (petitioners herein) from claiming and
acting as such (elected o cers of the union) and to have the election
proceedings of October 4, 1996 invalidated and declared null and void. Taking
note of plaintiffs' (private respondents') previous moves before the Department of
Labor, Civil Case No. 97-81928 appear (sic) to have grown out therefrom — hence,
said case clearly falls outside of the competence of the trial court. 4 3
Another reason that militates against the trial court's assumption of
jurisdiction over the case is Article 254 of the Labor Code that states:
Art. 254. Injunction prohibited. — No temporary or permanent
injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of labor
disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity, except as otherwise
provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this Code. 4 4

As pointed out by petitioners, the Court of Appeals erroneously categorized the

instant matter as a labor dispute. Such labor dispute includes any controversy or matter
concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or representation of
persons in negotiating, xing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions
of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 employer and employee. 4 5 Jurisdiction over labor disputes, including claims for actual,
moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee
relations is vested in Labor Arbiters and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
46

On the other hand, an intra-union dispute refers to any con ict between and among
union members. It encompasses all disputes or grievances arising from any violation of or
disagreement over any provision of the constitution and by-laws of a union, not excepting
cases arising from chartering or a liation of labor organizations or from any violation of
the rights and conditions of union membership provided for in the Labor Code. 4 7 In
contrast, an inter-union dispute refers to any con ict between and among legitimate labor
organizations involving questions of representation for purposes of collective bargaining;
it includes all other con icts which legitimate labor organizations may have against each
other based on any violations of their rights as labor organizations. 4 8 Like labor disputes,
jurisdiction over intra-union and inter-union disputes does not pertain to the regular courts.
It is vested in the Bureau of Labor Relations Divisions in the regional o ces of the
Department of Labor.
Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-016 entitled "Eduardo J. Mariño, Jr., et al. v. Gil Gamilla, et
al." before the BLR is neither a labor nor an inter-union dispute. It is clearly an intra-union
dispute.
The case before the trial court, Civil Case No. 97-81928 entitled Eduardo J. Mariño,
Jr., et al. v. Gil Gamilla, et al., 4 9 on the other hand, is a simple case for damages, with an
accompanying application for injunction. The complaint essentially bears the following
allegations: that despite an outstanding temporary restraining order prohibiting the
holding of an election of o cers, respondent Gamilla and others proceeded to hold a
purported election; that there was a case pending before the DOLE questioning the validity
of the supposed election; and, that respondent Gamilla with two other persons (later
learned to be respondents Aseron and Cardenas) compelled the o ce messenger to
vacate the premises of the USTFU o ce, and thereafter padlocked the room. Petitioners
alleged respondents' act of padlocking the o ce was without lawful basis, and had
prevented them from entering the o ce premises, thereby denying them access to
personal effects, documents and records needed in the on-going cases both in the DOLE
and in the complaint a quo, and ultimately precluding the union from serving its members.
Fundamentally, the civil case a quo seeks two reliefs — one is for the removal of the
padlocks on the o ce door and restraining respondents from blocking petitioners' access
to the premises, while the other is for the recovery of moral and exemplary damages.
Prior to the institution of the civil case, petitioners led before the Med-Arbitration
Unit of the DOLE-NCR a petition for prohibition, injunction with a prayer for preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order against herein respondents for the latter's
assumption of o ce as elected USTFU o cers. Speci cally, they prayed that respondents
be enjoined from claiming to be the duly elected o cers of the union and from performing
acts for and in behalf of the union.
The propriety of padlocking the union's o ce, the relief sought by the petitioner in
the civil case, is interwoven with the issue of legitimacy of the assumption of o ce by the
respondents in light of the violation of the union's constitution and by-laws, which was then
pending before the Med-Arbiter. Necessarily, therefore, the trial court has no jurisdiction
over the case insofar as the prayer for the removal of the padlocks and the issuance of an
injunctive writ is concerned.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 It is a settled rule that jurisdiction, once acquired, continues until the case is nally
terminated. 5 0 The petition with the Med-Arbiter was led ahead of the complaint in the
civil case before the RTC. As such, when the petitioners led their complaint a quo,
jurisdiction over the injunction and restraining order prayed for had already been lodged
with the Med-Arbiter. The removal of padlocks and the access to the o ce premises is
necessarily included in petitioners' prayer to enjoin respondents from performing acts
pertaining to union o cers and on behalf of the union. In observance of the principle of
adherence of jurisdiction, it is clear that the RTC should not have exercised jurisdiction over
the provisional reliefs prayed for in the complaint. A review of the complaint shows that
petitioners disclosed the existence of the petition pending before the Med-Arbiter and
even attached a copy thereof. 5 1 The trial court was also aware of the decision of the Med-
Arbiter dated 11 February 1997, declaring the supposed union o cers' election void ab
initio and ordering respondents to cease and desist from discharging the duties and
functions of the legitimate o cers of the USTFU. The trial court even obtained a copy of
the said decision two (2) days after its promulgation. 5 2 Still, it continued the hearing on
the application for injunction and eventually issued the assailed orders.
At this juncture, the Court notes that a key question in this case has already been
settled by the Court in its decision in UST Faculty Union, et al. v. Bitonio, Jr., et al . 5 3 In that
case, it was ruled that the 04 October 1996 election was void for having been conducted in
violation of the union's constitution and by-laws. Nevertheless, the complaint a quo could
not have validly proceeded at the time of its ling of the said case due to petitioners' lack
of cause of action.
As to the alleged inclusion of the USTFU as petitioner in the petition before the Court
of Appeals, su ce it to say that the right to use the union's name as well as to represent it
has been settled by our decision in UST Faculty Union, et al. v. Bitonio, Jr., et al . Petitioners,
as the rightful o cers of the USTFU, and not respondents, have the right to represent
USTFU in the proceedings.
Let us go back to the claim for damages before the lower court. Art. 226 of the
Labor Code provides, thus:
The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor Relations Divisions in the
regional o ces of the Department of Labor shall have original and exclusive
authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on
all inter-union and intra-union con icts, and all disputes, grievances or problems
arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces whether
agricultural or non-agricultural, except those arising from the implementation or
interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of
grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.

Thus, unlike the NLRC which is explicitly vested with the jurisdiction over claims for
actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, 5 4 the BLR is not speci cally
empowered to adjudicate claims of such nature arising from intra-union or inter-union
disputes. In fact, Art. 241 of the Labor Code ordains the separate institution before the
regular courts of criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of the rights and
conditions of union membership. The Court has consistently held that where no employer-
employee exists between the parties and no issue is involved which may be resolved by
reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or any collective bargaining agreement,
it is the regional trial court that has jurisdiction. 5 5
Administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and as such, can
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 exercise only those powers which are speci cally granted to them by their enabling
statutes. Consequently, matters over which they are not granted authority are beyond their
competence. 5 6 While the trend is towards vesting administrative bodies with the power to
adjudicate matters coming under their particular specialization, to ensure a more
knowledgeable solution of the problems submitted to them, this should not deprive the
courts of justice their power to decide ordinary cases in accordance with the general laws
that do not require any particular expertise or training to interpret and apply. 5 7 In their
complaint in the civil case, petitioners do not seek any relief under the Labor Code but the
payment of a sum of money as damages on account of respondents' alleged tortuous
conduct. The action is within the realm of civil law and, hence, jurisdiction over the case
belongs to the regular courts. 5 8
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals setting aside the Order dated 3 March 1997 and the writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction dated 5 March 1997 is hereby AFFIRMED. The case is REMANDED to the trial
court for further proceedings in accordance with this Decision. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Austria-Martinez and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Callejo, Sr., J., on official leave.

Footnotes
1. Promulgated by the Seventh Division, Justice Ramon Mabutas, Jr., presiding, Justices Jorge
S. Imperial and Hilarion L. Aquino, concurring. Rollo, p. 69.

2. Entitled UST Faculty Union, Gil Gamilla, Justino Cardenas and Dupont Aseron v. Hon. Amor
A. Reyes, Presiding Judge, Branch 21, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Eduardo J. Mariño,
Jr. and Ma. Melvyn P. Alamis.
3. Rollo, p. 14.

4. Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001, "Gil Y. Gamilla, et al., v. Edgar Yu, Chairperson, et al."
5. Rollo, p. 15.
6. Ibid.
7. Id. at 15-16.
8. Docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-016 entitled "Eduardo J. Mariño, Jr., et al. v. Gil
Gamilla, et al."
9. Decision dated 20 August 1997, Rollo, p. 64.

10. Ibid.
11. Id. at 17.
12. Id. at 71-89. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 97-81928, entitled "Eduardo J. Mariño,
Jr., et al. v. Gil Gamilla, et al. " and was ra ed to Branch 21, presided by Judge Amor
Reyes.

13. Id. at 19.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 14. Ibid.
15. Id. at 21.

16. "UST Faculty Union, et al. v. Bitonio, Jr., et al.," G.R. No. 131235.
17. 376 Phil. 294 (1999). The Court, through Justice Panganiban, ruled that the election
conducted on 4 October 1996 was tainted with irregularities, as it was not convened in
accordance with the provision on general membership meetings, there was no
commission on election to oversee the process and it was not done by secret balloting —
all in violation of the USTFU Constitution and By-laws. It added that frustrations over the
performance of union o cers, as well as their fears of a fraudulent election to be held
under the latter's supervision, could not justify the method they chose to impose their will
on the union. (376 Phil. 308-310, 311-312)
18. Rollo, pp. 94-98.
19. Id. at 99.

20. Id. at 100-119.

21. Id. at 117.
22. Id. at 65. See note 12.
23. Id. at 67.
24. Id. at 68.

25. Id. at 69.

26. Id. at 173-188.
27. Id. at 27.
28. Id. at 28.
29. Art. 241. Rights and Conditions of Membership in a Labor Organization. — Any violation of
the above rights and conditions of membership shall be a ground for cancellation of
union registration or expulsion of o cer from o ce, whichever is appropriate. At least
thirty percent (30%) of all the members of a union or any member or members specially
concerned may report such violation to the Bureau. The Bureau shall have the power to
hear and decide any reported violation to mete the appropriate penalty.
30. Rollo, pp. 34-35.
31. Art. 254. Injunction Prohibited. — No temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order
in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or
other entity, except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this Code.
32. Rollo, pp. 42-44.
33. Id. at 51.

34. Id. at 48.

35. CA-G.R. SP No. 43701.
36. Rollo, pp. 25-26.
37. Id. at 206.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 38. Id. at 208.
39. Id. at 204.
40. Sumndad v. Harrigan, 430 Phil. 612, 621 (2002).

41. Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 62, 66 (2002).
42. Rollo, p. 6.
43. Id. at 67.
44. Id. at 68.
45. Art. 212(l) of the Labor Code.

46. Art. 217, Labor Code.

47. Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book V, Rule 1(z).
48. Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book V, Rule 1(aa).
49. Rollo, pp. 71-87.

50. A Prime Security Services, Inc. v. Hon. Drilon , 316 Phil. 532, 537, (1995) citing Pamintuan v.
Tigalo, 53 Phil. 1 (1927), Iburan v. Labes , 87 Phil. 234 (1950); Philippine Land-Air-Sea
Labor Union (PLASLU), Inc. v. CIR, 93 Phil. 747 (1953).
51. RTC Records, pp. 34-48.
52. Id. at 195-223, marked as Annexes I to I-28, with the notation "2/13/97."

53. Supra notes 16 & 17.

54. ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. — (a) Except as otherwise
provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
to hear and decide within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by
the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the
following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may le involving
wage, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-
employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving
the legality of strikes and lockouts;
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity
bene ts, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations, including those of
persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding ve thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.

xxx xxx xxx

55. Manliguez, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al ., G.R. No. 92598, 20 May 1994, 232 SCRA 427,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 431; Lapanday Agricultural Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals , 381 Phil. 41,
48 (2002).

56. Chung Ka Bio v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 163 SCRA 534, 545, 26 July 1988.
57. Saura v. Saura, Jr ., 372 Phil. 337, 348 (1999), 313 SCRA 465, 474, citing Macapalan v.
Katalbas-Moscardon, 227 SCRA 49, 54-55 (1993).
58. Lapanday Agricultural Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals , 381 Phil. 41, 48
(2002).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com