RepublicofthePhilippines

SupremeCourt
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

CLAUDIOS.YAP, G.R.No.179532
Petitioner,
Present:

CARPIO,J.,
Chairperson,
versus NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD,and

MENDOZA,JJ.
THENAMARISSHIPSMANAGEMENT
andINTERMAREMARITIMEAGENCIES, Promulgated:
INC.,
Respondents. May30,2011

xx


DECISION

NACHURA,J.:

[1]
BeforethisCourtisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari underRule45oftheRules
[2]
of Civil Procedure, seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated
February 28, 2007, which affirmed with modification the National Labor Relations
[3]
Commission(NLRC)resolution datedApril20,2005.

Theundisputedfacts,asfoundbytheCA,areasfollows:

 [Petitioner]ClaudioS.Yapwasemployedaselectricianofthevessel,M/TSEASCOUTon
14 August 2001 by Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc. in behalf of its principal, Vulture
ShippingLimited.ThecontractofemploymententeredintobyYapandCapt.FranciscoB.
Adviento,theGeneralManagerofIntermare,wasforadurationof12months.On23August
2001,YapboardedM/TSEASCOUTandcommencedhisjobaselectrician.However,onor
about 08 November 2001, the vessel was sold. The Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration(POEA)wasinformedaboutthesaleon06December2001inalettersigned
byCapt.Adviento.Yap,alongwiththeothercrewmembers,wasinformedbytheMasterof
theirvesselthatthesamewassoldandwillbescrapped.Theywerealsoinformedaboutthe
AdvisorysentbyCapt.Constatinou,whichstates,amongothers:

PLEASEASKYROFFICERSANDRATINGSIFTHEYWISHTOBETRANSFERRED
TO OTHER VESSELS AFTER VESSEL S DELIVERY (GREEK VIA ATHENS
PHILIPINOSVIAMANILA
FORCREWNOTWISHTRANSFERTODECLARETHEIRPROSPECTEDTIMEFOR
REEMBARKATIONINORDERTOSCHEDULETHEMACCLY

Yap received his seniority bonus, vacation bonus, extra bonus along with the scrapping
bonus.However,withrespecttothepaymentofhiswage,herefusedtoacceptthepayment
ofonemonthbasicwage.Heinsistedthathewasentitledtothepaymentoftheunexpired
portionofhiscontractsincehewasillegallydismissedfromemployment.Heallegedthathe
optedforimmediatetransferbutnonewasmade.

[Respondents], for their part, contended that Yap was not illegally dismissed. They alleged that
followingthesaleoftheM/TSEASCOUT,Yapsignedofffromthevesselon10November
2001andwaspaidhiswagescorrespondingtothemonthsheworkedoruntil10November
2001 plus his seniority bonus, vacation bonus and extra bonus. They further alleged that
Yaps employment contract was validly terminated due to the sale of the vessel and no
[4]
arrangementwasmadeforYapstransfertoThenamarisothervessels.

Thus, Claudio S. Yap (petitioner) filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal with
DamagesandAttorneysFeesbeforetheLaborArbiter(LA).Petitionerclaimedthathewas
entitledtothesalariescorrespondingtotheunexpiredportionofhiscontract.Subsequently,
he filed an amended complaint, impleading Captain Francisco Adviento of respondents
Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc. (Intermare) and Thenamaris Ships Management
(respondents),togetherwithC.J.Martionos,InterseasTradingandFinancingCorporation,
andVultureShippingLimited/StejoShippingLimited.

[5]
OnJuly26,2004,theLArenderedadecision infavorofpetitioner,findingthelatterto
havebeenconstructivelyandillegallydismissedbyrespondents.Moreover, the LA found
that respondents acted in bad faith when they assured petitioner of reembarkation and
required him to produce an electrician certificate during the period of his contract, but
actuallyhewasnotabletoboardonedespiteofrespondentsnumerousvessels.Petitioner
madeseveralfollowupsforhisreembarkationbutrespondentsfailedtoheedhispleathus,
petitionerwasforcedtolitigateinordertovindicatehisrights.Lastly,theLAopinedthat
since the unexpired portion of petitioners contract was less than one year, petitioner was
entitledtohissalariesfortheunexpiredportionofhiscontractforaperiodofninemonths.
TheLAdisposed,asfollows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, a decision is hereby rendered declaring
complainant to have been constructively dismissed. Accordingly, respondents Intermare
MaritimeAgencyIncorporated,ThenamarisShips Mgt.,and Vulture Shipping Limited are
orderedtopayjointlyandseverallycomplainantClaudioS.Yapthesumof$12,870.00orits
peso equivalent at the time of payment. In addition, moral damages of ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) and exemplary damages of FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P50,000.00) are awarded plus ten percent (10%) of the total award as attorneys
fees.

OthermoneyclaimsareDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.

[6]
SOORDERED.


Aggrieved,respondentssoughtrecoursefromtheNLRC.

[7]
Initsdecision datedJanuary14,2005,theNLRCaffirmedtheLAsfindingsthat
petitionerwasindeedconstructivelyandillegallydismissedthatrespondentsbadfaithwas
evidentontheirwilfulfailuretotransferpetitionertoanothervesselandthattheawardof
attorneysfeeswaswarranted.However,theNLRCheldthatinsteadofanawardofsalaries
corresponding to nine months, petitioner was only entitled to salaries for three months as
[8] [9]
provided under Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, as enunciated in our
[10]
ruling in Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission.
Hence,theNLRCruledinthiswise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter finding the
termination of complainant illegal is hereby AFFIRMED with a MODIFICATION.
Complainant[s] salary for the unexpired portion of his contract should only be limited to
three(3)monthsbasicsalary.

Respondents Intermare Maritime Agency, Inc.[,] Vulture Shipping Limited and
 ThenamarisShipManagementareherebyorderedtojointlyandseverallypaycomplainant,
thefollowing:

1. Three(3)monthsbasicsalaryUS$4,290.00oritspesoequivalentatthetimeof
actualpayment.
2.MoraldamagesP100,000.00
3.ExemplarydamagesP50,000.00
4.Attorneysfeesequivalentto10%ofthetotalmonetaryaward.

[11]
SOORDERED.

[12]
Respondents filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, praying for the reversal and
setting aside of the NLRC decision, and that a new one be rendered dismissing the
complaint.Petitioner,ontheotherhand,filedhisownMotionforPartialReconsideration,
[13]
prayingthathebepaidthenine(9)monthbasicsalary,asawardedbytheLA.

[14]
OnApril20,2005,aresolution wasrenderedbytheNLRC,affirmingthefindingsof
IllegalDismissalandrespondentsfailuretotransferpetitionertoanothervessel.However,
findingmeritinpetitionersarguments,theNLRCreverseditsearlierDecision,holdingthat
therecanbenochoicetograntonlythree(3)monthssalaryforeveryyearoftheunexpired
termbecausethereisnofullyearofunexpiredtermwhichthiscanbeapplied.Hence

WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainants Motion for Partial Reconsideration is

herebygranted.The award of three (3) months basic salary in the sum of US$4,290.00 is
hereby modified in that complainant is entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of
employmentcontractinthesumofUS$12,870.00oritspesoequivalentatthetimeofactual
payment.

AllaspectofourJanuary14,2005DecisionSTANDS.

[15]
SOORDERED.

RespondentsfiledaMotionforReconsideration,whichtheNLRCdenied.

[16]
Undaunted,respondentsfiledapetitionforcertiorari underRule65oftheRules
ofCivilProcedurebeforetheCA.OnFebruary28,2007,theCAaffirmedthefindingsand
rulingofthe LA and the NLRC that petitioner was constructively and illegally dismissed.
The CA held that respondents failed to show that the NLRC acted without statutory
authority and that its findings were not supported by law, jurisprudence, and evidence on
record.Likewise,theCAaffirmedtheloweragenciesfindingsthattheadvisoryofCaptain
Constantinou,takentogetherwiththeotherdocumentsandadditionalrequirementsimposed
onpetitioner,onlymeantthatthelattershouldhavebeenreembarked.Inthesametoken,
theCAupheldtheloweragenciesunanimousfindingofbadfaith,warrantingtheimposition
ofmoralandexemplarydamagesandattorneysfees.However,theCAruledthattheNLRC
erredinsustainingtheLAsinterpretationofSection10ofR.A.No.8042.Inthisregard,the
CAreliedontheclauseorforthreemonthsforeveryyearoftheunexpiredterm,whichever
islessprovidedinthe5thparagraphofSection10ofR.A.No.8042andheld:

Inthepresentcase,theemploymentcontractconcernedhasatermofoneyearor12
months which commenced on August 14, 2001. However, it was preterminated without a
validcause.[Petitioner]waspaidhiswagesforthecorrespondingmonthsheworkeduntil
the10thofNovember.PursuanttotheprovisionsofSec.10,[R.A.No.]8042,therefore,the
[17]
optionofthreemonthsforeveryyearoftheunexpiredtermisapplicable.

Thus,theCAprovided,towit:

WHEREFORE,premises considered, this Petition for Certiorari is DENIED. The
DecisiondatedJanuary14,2005,andResolutions,datedApril20,2005andJuly29,2005,
respectively, of public respondent National Labor Relations CommissionFourth Division,
Cebu City, in NLRC No. V00003804 (RAB VIII (OFW)04010006) are hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that private respondent is entitled to three (3)
monthsofbasicsalarycomputedatUS$4,290.00oritspesoequivalentatthetimeofactual
payment.

[18]
CostsagainstPetitioners.

Both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration, which the CA,
[19]
however,deniedinitsResolution datedAugust30,2007.

Unyielding,petitionerfiledthispetition,raisingthefollowingissues:

1)WhetherornotSection10ofR.A.[No.]8042,totheextentthatitaffordsanillegally
dismissed migrant worker the lesser benefit of salariesfor[the]unexpired portionof
hisemploymentcontractorforthree(3)monthsforeveryyearoftheunexpiredterm,
 whicheverislessisconstitutionaland

2) Assumingthatitis,whetherornottheCourtofAppealsgravelyerredingranting
petitioneronlythree(3)monthsbackwageswhenhisunexpiredtermof9monthsisfar
[20]
shortoftheeveryyearoftheunexpiredtermthreshold.

In the meantime, while this case was pending before this Court, we declared as
unconstitutional the clause or for three months for every year of the unexpired term,
whicheverislessprovidedinthe5thparagraphofSection10ofR.A.No.8042inthecaseof
[21]
Serranov.GallantMaritimeServices,Inc. onMarch24,2009.

Apparently,unawareofourrulinginSerrano,petitionerclaimsthatthe5thparagraph
[22] [23]
of Section 10, R.A. No. 8042, is violative of Section 1, Article III and Section 3,
ArticleXIIIoftheConstitutiontotheextentthatitgivesanerringemployertheoptionto
payanillegallydismissedmigrantworkeronlythreemonthsforeveryyearoftheunexpired
termofhiscontractthatsaidprovisionoflawhaslongbeenasourceofabusebycallous
employers against migrant workers and that said provision violates the equal protection
clause under the Constitution because, while illegally dismissed local workers are
guaranteedundertheLaborCodeofreinstatementwithfullbackwagescomputedfromthe
time compensation was withheld from them up to their actual reinstatement, migrant
workers, by virtue of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, have to waive nine months of their
collectiblebackwageseverytimetheyhaveayearofunexpiredtermofcontracttoreckon
with.Finally,petitionerpositsthat,assumingsaidprovisionoflawisconstitutional,theCA
gravely abused its discretion when it reduced petitioners backwages from nine months to
three months as his ninemonth unexpired term cannot accommodate the lesser relief of
[24]
threemonthsforeveryyearoftheunexpiredterm.

On the other hand, respondents, aware of our ruling in Serrano, aver that our
pronouncementofunconstitutionalityoftheclauseorforthreemonthsforeveryyearofthe
unexpiredterm,whicheverislessprovidedinthe5thparagraphofSection10ofR.A.No.
8042 in Serrano should not apply in this case because Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is a
substantive law that deals with the rights and obligations of the parties in case of Illegal
Dismissalofamigrantworkerandisnotmerelyproceduralincharacter.Thus,pursuantto
theCivilCode,thereshouldbenoretroactiveapplicationofthelawinthiscase.Moreover,
respondents asseverate that petitioners tanker allowance of US$130.00 should not be
includedinthecomputationoftheawardaspetitionersbasicsalary,asprovidedunderhis
contract,wasonlyUS$1,300.00.RespondentssubmitthattheCAerredinitscomputation
since it included the said tanker allowance. Respondents opine that petitioner should be
entitled only to US$3,900.00 and not to US$4,290.00, as granted by the CA. Invoking
Serrano,respondentsclaimthatthetankerallowanceshouldbeexcludedfromthedefinition
ofthetermsalary.Also,respondentsmanifestthatthefullsumofP878,914.47inIntermares
bank account was garnished and subsequently withdrawn and deposited with the NLRC
CashierofTaclobanCityonFebruary14,2007.OnFebruary16,2007,whilethiscasewas
pending before the CA, the LA issued an Order releasing the amount of P781,870.03 to
petitionerashisaward,togetherwiththesumofP86,744.44topetitionersformerlawyeras
attorneys fees, and the amount of P3,570.00 as execution and deposit fees. Thus,
respondentspraythattheinstantpetitionbedeniedandthatpetitionerbedirectedtoreturn
[25]
toIntermarethesumofUS$8,970.00oritspesoequivalent.

Onthisnote,petitionercountersthatthisnewissueastotheinclusionofthetanker
allowanceinthecomputationoftheawardwasnotraisedbyrespondentsbeforetheLA,the
NLRC and the CA, nor was it raised in respondents pleadings other than in their
[26]
MemorandumbeforethisCourt,whichshouldnotbeallowedunderthecircumstances.
Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.

Prefatorily, it bears emphasis that the unanimous finding of the LA, the NLRC and
theCAthatthedismissalofpetitionerwasillegalisnotdisputed.Likewisenotdisputedis
thetribunalsunanimousfindingofbadfaithonthepartofrespondents,thus,warrantingthe
award of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. What remains in issue,
therefore,istheconstitutionalityofthe5thparagraphofSection10ofR.A.No.8042and,
necessarily,thepropercomputationofthelumpsumsalarytobeawardedtopetitionerby
reasonofhisillegaldismissal.

Verily,wehavealreadydeclaredinSerrano that the clause or for three months for
everyyearoftheunexpiredterm,whicheverislessprovidedinthe5thparagraphofSection
10ofR.A.No.8042isunconstitutionalforbeingviolativeoftherightsofOverseasFilipino
Workers (OFWs) to equal protection of the laws. In an exhaustive discussion of the
intricaciesandramificationsofthesaidclause,thisCourt,inSerrano,pertinentlyheld:

The Court concludes that the subject clause contains a suspect classification in
that,inthecomputationofthemonetarybenefitsoffixedtermemployeeswhoareillegally
discharged,itimposesa3monthcapontheclaimofOFWswithanunexpiredportionof
one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local
workerswithfixedtermemployment.Thesubjectclausesinglesoutoneclassificationof
[27]
OFWsandburdensitwithapeculiardisadvantage.

Moreover,thisCourtheldthereinthatthesubjectclausedoesnotstateorimplyany
definitivegovernmentalpurposehence,thesameviolatesnotjustthereinpetitionersrightto
equalprotection,butalsohisrighttosubstantivedueprocessunderSection1,ArticleIIIof
[28]
the Constitution. Consequently, petitioner therein was accorded his salaries for the
entireunexpiredperiodofninemonthsand23daysofhisemploymentcontract,pursuantto
lawandjurisprudencepriortotheenactmentofR.A.No.8042.

Wehavealreadyspoken.Thus,thiscaseshouldnotbedifferentfromSerrano.

Asageneralrule,anunconstitutionalactisnotalawitconfersnorightsitimposes
nodutiesitaffordsnoprotectionitcreatesnoofficeitisinoperativeasifithasnotbeen
passedatall.ThegeneralruleissupportedbyArticle7oftheCivilCode,whichprovides:

Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non
observanceshallnotbeexcusedbydisuseorcustomorpracticetothecontrary.

The doctrine of operative fact serves as an exception to the aforementioned general

[29]
rule.InPlantersProducts,Inc.v.FertiphilCorporation, weheld:

Thedoctrineofoperativefact,asanexceptiontothegeneralrule,onlyappliesasa
matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by
recognizingthattheexistenceofastatutepriortoadeterminationofunconstitutionalityisan
operativefactandmayhaveconsequenceswhichcannotalwaysbeignored.Thepastcannot
alwaysbeerasedbyanewjudicialdeclaration.
 The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an
undueburdenonthosewhohavereliedontheinvalidlaw.Thus,itwasappliedtoacriminal
casewhenadeclarationofunconstitutionalitywouldputtheaccusedindoublejeopardyor
[30]
wouldputinlimbotheactsdonebyamunicipalityinrelianceuponalawcreatingit.

Following Serrano, we hold that this case should not be included in the
aforementionedexception.Afterall,itwasnotthefaultofpetitionerthathelosthisjobdue
to an act of illegal dismissal committed by respondents. To rule otherwise would be
iniquitous to petitioner and other OFWs, and would, in effect, send a wrong signal that
principals/employers and recruitment/manning agencies may violate an OFWs security of
tenure which an employment contract embodies and actually profit from such violation
basedonanunconstitutionalprovisionoflaw.

In the same vein, we cannot subscribe to respondents postulation that the tanker
allowanceofUS$130.00shouldnotbeincludedinthecomputationofthelumpsumsalary
tobeawardedtopetitioner.

First. It is only at this late stage, more particularly in their Memorandum, that
respondentsareraisingthisissue.ItwasnotraisedbeforetheLA,theNLRC,andtheCA.
They did not even assail the award accorded by the CA, which computed the lumpsum
salary of petitioner at the basic salary of US$1,430.00, and which clearly included the
US$130.00 tanker allowance. Hence, fair play, justice, and due process dictate that this
Courtcannotnow,forthefirsttimeonappeal,passuponthisquestion.Mattersnottakenup
belowcannotberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.Theymustberaisedseasonablyinthe
proceedingsbeforethelowertribunals.Questionsraisedonappealmustbewithintheissues
framedbythepartiesconsequently,issuesnotraisedbeforethelowertribunalscannotbe
[31]
raisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.

Second. Respondents invocation of Serrano is unavailing. Indeed, we made the
followingpronouncementsinSerrano,towit:

ThewordsalariesinSection10(5)doesnotincludeovertimeandleavepay.For
seafarerslikepetitioner,DOLEDepartmentOrderNo.33,series1996,providesaStandard
Employment Contract of Seafarers, in which salary is understood as the basic wage,
exclusive of overtime, leave pay and other bonuses whereas overtime pay is
 compensationforallworkperformedinexcessoftheregulareighthours,andholidaypayis
[32]
compensationforanyworkperformedondesignatedrestdaysandholidays.


A close perusal of the contract reveals that the tanker allowance of US$130.00 was
not categorized as a bonus but was rather encapsulated in the basic salary clause, hence,
formingpartofthebasicsalaryofpetitioner.Respondentsthemselvesintheirpetitionfor
certioraribeforetheCAaverredthatpetitionersbasicsalary,pursuanttothecontract,was
[33]
US$1,300.00+US$130.00tankerallowance. Ifrespondentsintendeditdifferently,the
contract per se should have indicated that said allowance does not form part of the basic
salaryor,simply,thecontractshouldhaveseparateditfromthebasicsalaryclause.

Afinalnote.

We ought to be reminded of the plight and sacrifices of our OFWs. In Olarte v.
[34]
Nayona, thisCourtheldthat:

Ouroverseasworkersbelongtoadisadvantagedclass.Mostofthemcomefromthe
poorestsectorofoursociety.Theirprofileshowstheyliveinsuffocatingslums,trappedin
anenvironmentofcrimes.Hardlyliterateandinillhealth,theironlyhopeliesinjobsthey
findwithdifficultyinourcountry.Theirunfortunatecircumstancemakesthemeasypreyto
avariciousemployers.Theywillclimbmountains,crosstheseas,endureslavetreatmentin
foreign lands just to survive. Out of despondence, they will work under subhuman
conditionsandacceptsalariesbelowtheminimum.Theleastwecandoistoprotectthem
withourlaws.


WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated
February 28, 2007 and Resolution dated August 30, 2007 are hereby MODIFIED to the
effect that petitioner is AWARDED his salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his
employment contract consisting of nine months computed at the rate of US$1,430.00 per
month.AllotherawardsareherebyAFFIRMED.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.



 ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson



DIOSDADOM.PERALTA ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice


ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision


CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.3356.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Stephen C. Cruz,
concurringid.at6073.
[3]
Id.at166170.
[4]
Supranote2,at6365.
[5]
Rollo,pp.121129.
[6]
Id.at129.
[7]
Id.at130149.
[8]
Thelastclauseinthe5thparagraphofSection10,R.A.No.8042,providestowit:
Sec.10.MONEYCLAIMS.xxx.
Incaseofterminationofoverseasemploymentwithoutjust,validorauthorizedcauseasdefinedbylaworcontract,the
workersshallbeentitledtothefullreimbursementofhisplacementfeewithinterestoftwelvepercent(12%)perannum,plus
hissalariesfortheunexpiredportionofhisemploymentcontractorforthree(3)monthsforeveryyearoftheunexpired
term,whicheverisless.(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied.)
[9]
TheMigrantWorkersandOverseasFilipinosActof1995,effectiveJuly15,1995.
[10]
371Phil.827(1999).
[11]
Supranote7,at148149.
[12]
Rollo,pp.157163.
[13]
Id.at150156.
[14]
Id.at166170.
[15]
Id.at170.
[16]
Id.at171196.
[17]
Supranote2,at70.
[18]
Id.at7273.
[19]
Rollo,pp.9699.
[20]
Supranote1,at4445.
[21]
G.R.No.167614,March24,2009,582SCRA254.
[22]
Section1,ArticleIIIoftheConstitutionprovides:
Section1.Nopersonshallbedeprivedoflife,liberty,orpropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw,norshallanypersonbe
deniedtheequalprotectionofthelaws.
[23]
Section3,ArticleXIIIoftheConstitutionpertinentlyprovides:
Sec.3.TheStateshallaffordfullprotectiontolabor,localandoverseas,organizedandunorganized,andpromotefull
employmentandequalityofemploymentopportunitiesforall.
[24]
Rollo,pp.312331.
[25]
Id.at290303.
[26]
Supranote24.
[27]
Supranote21,at295.
[28]
Id.at303.
[29]
G.R.No.166006,March14,2008,548SCRA485.
[30]
Id.at516517.(Citationsomitted.)
[31]
Aysonv.Vda.DeCarpio,476Phil.525,535(2004).
[32]
Supranote21,at303.(Emphasissupplied.)
[33]
Supranote16,at173.
[34]
461Phil.429,431(2003).