Today is Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 158253 March 2, 2007
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, r!r"#$% &' $h (EP)RTMENT OF PUBLIC *OR+S )N(
HIGH*),S, COMMISSION ON )U(IT a#% THE N)TION)L TRE)SURER, Petitioner,
vs.
C)RLITO L)C)P, %o-#. &/"-#"" /#%r $h #a0 a#% "$'1 C)R*IN CONSTRUCTION )N(
CONSTRUCTION SUPPL,, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
)USTRI)2M)RTINE3, J.:
"efore the !ourt is a Petition for Revie# on !ertiorari under Rule $% of the Revised Rules of !ourt assailin& the
Decision
'
dated (pril )*, )++, of the !ourt of (ppeals -!(. in !(/0.R. !V No. %1,$% #hich affir2ed #ith
2odification the Decision
)
of the Re&ional Trial !ourt, "ranch $', San 3ernando, Pa2pan&a -RT!. in !ivil !ase No.
'+%,*, &rantin& the co2plaint for Specific Perfor2ance and Da2a&es filed b4 !arlito 5acap -respondent. a&ainst the
Republic of the Philippines -petitioner..
The factual bac6&round of the case is as follo#s7
The District n&ineer of Pa2pan&a issued and dul4 published an 8Invitation To "id8 dated 9anuar4 ):, ';;).
Respondent, doin& business under the na2e and st4le !ar#in !onstruction and !onstruction Suppl4 -!ar#in
!onstruction., #as pre/<ualified to&ether #ith t#o other contractors. Since respondent sub2itted the lo#est bid, he #as
a#arded the contract for the concretin& of Sitio % Bahay Pare.
,
On Nove2ber $, ';;), a !ontract (&ree2ent #as
e=ecuted b4 respondent and petitioner.
$
On Septe2ber )%, ';;), District n&ineer Rafael S. Ponio issued a Notice to
Proceed #ith the concretin& of Sitio % Bahay Pare.
%
(ccordin&l4, respondent undertoo6 the #or6s, 2ade advances for
the purchase of the 2aterials and pa42ent for labor costs.
1
On October );, ';;), personnel of the Office of the District n&ineer of San 3ernando, Pa2pan&a conducted a final
inspection of the pro>ect and found it '++? co2pleted in accordance #ith the approved plans and specifications.
(ccordin&l4, the Office of the District n&ineer issued !ertificates of 3inal Inspection and 3inal (cceptance.
:
Thereafter, respondent sou&ht to collect pa42ent for the co2pleted pro>ect.
*
The DP@H prepared the Disburse2ent
Voucher in favor of petitioner.
;
Ho#ever, the DP@H #ithheld pa42ent fro2 respondent after the District (uditor of the
!o22ission on (udit -!O(. disapproved the final release of funds on the &round that the contractorAs license of
respondent had e=pired at the ti2e of the e=ecution of the contract. The District n&ineer sou&ht the opinion of the
DP@H 5e&al Depart2ent on #hether the contracts of !ar#in !onstruction for various Mount Pinatubo rehabilitation
pro>ects #ere valid and effective althou&h its contractorAs license had alread4 e=pired #hen the pro>ects #ere
contracted.
'+
In a 5etter/Repl4 dated Septe2ber ', ';;,, !esar D. Me>ia, Director III of the DP@H 5e&al Depart2ent opined that
since Republic (ct No. $%11 -R.(. No. $%11., other#ise 6no#n as the !ontractorAs 5icense 5a#, does not provide that
a contract entered into after the license has e=pired is void and there is no la# #hich e=pressl4 prohibits or declares
void such contract, the contract is enforceable and pa42ent 2a4 be paid, #ithout pre>udice to an4 appropriate
ad2inistrative liabilit4 action that 2a4 be i2posed on the contractor and the &overn2ent officials or e2plo4ees
concerned.
''
In a 5etter dated 9ul4 $, ';;$, the District n&ineer re<uested clarification fro2 the DP@H 5e&al Depart2ent on
#hether !ar#in !onstruction should be paid for #or6s acco2plished despite an e=pired contractorAs license at the ti2e
the contracts #ere e=ecuted.
')
In a 3irst Indorse2ent dated 9ul4 )+, ';;$, !esar D. Me>ia, Director III of the 5e&al Depart2ent, reco22ended that
pa42ent should be 2ade to !ar#in !onstruction, reiteratin& his earlier le&al opinion.
',
Despite such reco22endation
for pa42ent, no pa42ent #as 2ade to respondent.
Thus, on 9ul4 ,, ';;%, respondent filed the co2plaint for Specific Perfor2ance and Da2a&es a&ainst petitioner before
the RT!.
'$
On Septe2ber '$, ';;%, petitioner, throu&h the Office of the Solicitor 0eneral -OS0., filed a Motion to Dis2iss the
co2plaint on the &rounds that the co2plaint states no cause of action and that the RT! had no >urisdiction over the
nature of the action since respondent did not appeal to the !O( the decision of the District (uditor to disapprove the
clai2.
'%
3ollo#in& the sub2ission of respondentAs Opposition to Motion to Dis2iss,
'1
the RT! issued an Order dated March '',
';;1 den4in& the Motion to Dis2iss.
':
The OS0 filed a Motion for Reconsideration
'*
but it #as li6e#ise denied b4 the
RT! in its Order dated Ma4 ),, ';;1.
';
On (u&ust %, ';;1, the OS0 filed its (ns#er invo6in& the defenses of non/e=haustion of ad2inistrative re2edies and
the doctrine of non/suabilit4 of the State.
)+
3ollo#in& trial, the RT! rendered on 3ebruar4 ';, ';;: its Decision, the dispositive portion of #hich reads as follo#s7
@HR3OR, in vie# of all the fore&oin& consideration, >ud&2ent is hereb4 rendered in favor of the plaintiff and
a&ainst the defendant, orderin& the latter, thru its District n&ineer at Sindalan, San 3ernando, Pa2pan&a, to pa4 the
follo#in&7
a. P$%:,+++.++ B representin& the contract for the concretin& pro>ect of Sitio % road, "aha4 Pare, !andaba, Pa2pan&a
plus interest at ')? fro2 de2and until full4 paidC and
b. The costs of suit.
SO ORDRD.
)'
The RT! held that petitioner 2ust be re<uired to pa4 the contract price since it has accepted the co2pleted pro>ect and
en>o4ed the benefits thereofC to hold other#ise #ould be to overrun the lon& standin& and consistent pronounce2ent
a&ainst enrichin& oneself at the e=pense of another.
))
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal #ith the !(.
),
On (pril )*, )++,, the !( rendered its Decision sustainin& the
Decision of the RT!. It held that since the case involves the application of the principle of estoppel a&ainst the
&overn2ent #hich is a purel4 le&al <uestion, then the principle of e=haustion of ad2inistrative re2edies does not appl4C
that b4 its actions the &overn2ent is estopped fro2 <uestionin& the validit4 and bindin& effect of the !ontract
(&ree2ent #ith the respondentC that denial of pa42ent to respondent on purel4 technical &rounds after successful
co2pletion of the pro>ect is not countenanced either b4 >ustice or e<uit4.
The !( rendered herein the assailed Decision dated (pril )*, )++,, the dispositive portion of #hich reads7
@HR3OR, the decision of the lo#er court is hereb4 (33IRMD #ith 2odification in that the interest shall be si=
percent -1?. per annu2 co2puted fro2 9une )', ';;%.
SO ORDRD.
)$
Hence, the present petition on the follo#in& &round7
TH !ODRT O3 (PP(5S RRD IN NOT 3INDIN0 TH(T RSPONDNT H(S NO !(DS O3 (!TION
(0(INST PTITIONR, !ONSIDRIN0 TH(T7
-a. RSPONDNT 3(I5D TO EH(DST (DMINISTR(TIV RMDISC (ND
-b. IT IS TH !OMMISSION ON (DDIT @HI!H H(S TH PRIM(RF 9DRISDI!TION TO RSO5V
RSPONDNTAS MONF !5(IM (0(INST TH 0OVRNMNT.
)%
Petitioner contends that respondentAs recourse to >udicial action #as pre2ature since the proper re2ed4 #as to appeal
the District (uditorAs disapproval of pa42ent to the !O(, pursuant to Section $*, Presidential Decree No. '$$% -P.D.
No. '$$%., other#ise 6no#n as the 0overn2ent (uditin& !ode of the PhilippinesC that the !O( has pri2ar4
>urisdiction to resolve respondentAs 2one4 clai2 a&ainst the &overn2ent under Section )-'.,
)1
(rticle IE of the ';*:
!onstitution and Section )1
):
of P.D. No. '$$%C that non/observance of the doctrine of e=haustion of ad2inistrative
re2edies and the principle of pri2ar4 >urisdiction results in a lac6 of cause of action.
Respondent, on the other hand, in his Me2orandu2
)*
li2ited his discussion to !ivil !ode provisions relatin& to hu2an
relations. He sub2its that e<uit4 de2ands that he be paid for the #or6 perfor2edC other#ise, the 2andate of the !ivil
!ode provisions relatin& to hu2an relations #ould be rendered nu&ator4 if the State itself is allo#ed to i&nore and
circu2vent the standard of behavior it sets for its inhabitants.
The present petition is bereft of 2erit.
The &eneral rule is that before a part4 2a4 see6 the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the 2eans
afforded hi2 b4 ad2inistrative processes.
);
The issues #hich ad2inistrative a&encies are authoriGed to decide should
not be su22aril4 ta6en fro2 the2 and sub2itted to a court #ithout first &ivin& such ad2inistrative a&enc4 the
opportunit4 to dispose of the sa2e after due deliberation.
,+
!orollar4 to the doctrine of e=haustion of ad2inistrative re2edies is the doctrine of pri2ar4 >urisdictionC that is, courts
cannot or #ill not deter2ine a controvers4 involvin& a <uestion #hich is #ithin the >urisdiction of the ad2inistrative
tribunal prior to the resolution of that <uestion b4 the ad2inistrative tribunal, #here the <uestion de2ands the e=ercise
of sound ad2inistrative discretion re<uirin& the special 6no#led&e, e=perience and services of the ad2inistrative
tribunal to deter2ine technical and intricate 2atters of fact.
,'
Nonetheless, the doctrine of e=haustion of ad2inistrative re2edies and the corollar4 doctrine of pri2ar4 >urisdiction,
#hich are based on sound public polic4 and practical considerations, are not infle=ible rules. There are 2an4 accepted
e=ceptions, such as7 -a. #here there is estoppel on the part of the part4 invo6in& the doctrineC -b. #here the challen&ed
ad2inistrative act is patentl4 ille&al, a2ountin& to lac6 of >urisdictionC -c. #here there is unreasonable dela4 or official
inaction that #ill irretrievabl4 pre>udice the co2plainantC -d. #here the a2ount involved is relativel4 s2all so as to
2a6e the rule i2practical and oppressiveC -e. #here the <uestion involved is purel4 le&al and #ill ulti2atel4 have to be
decided b4 the courts of >usticeC
,)
-f. #here >udicial intervention is ur&entC -&. #hen its application 2a4 cause &reat and
irreparable da2a&eC -h. #here the controverted acts violate due processC -i. #hen the issue of non/e=haustion of
ad2inistrative re2edies has been rendered 2ootC
,,
->. #hen there is no other plain, speed4 and ade<uate re2ed4C -6.
#hen stron& public interest is involvedC and, -l. in <uo #arranto proceedin&s.
,$
=ceptions -c. and -e. are applicable to
the present case.
Not#ithstandin& the le&al opinions of the DP@H 5e&al Depart2ent rendered in ';;, and ';;$ that pa42ent to a
contractor #ith an e=pired contractorAs license is proper, respondent re2ained unpaid for the co2pleted #or6 despite
repeated de2ands. !learl4, there #as unreasonable dela4 and official inaction to the &reat pre>udice of respondent.
3urther2ore, #hether a contractor #ith an e=pired license at the ti2e of the e=ecution of its contract is entitled to be
paid for co2pleted pro>ects, clearl4 is a pure <uestion of la#. It does not involve an e=a2ination of the probative value
of the evidence presented b4 the parties. There is a <uestion of la# #hen the doubt or difference arises as to #hat the
la# is on a certain state of facts, and not as to the truth or the falsehood of alle&ed facts.
,%
Said <uestion at best could be
resolved onl4 tentatively b4 the ad2inistrative authorities. The final decision on the 2atter rests not #ith the2 but #ith
the courts of >ustice. =haustion of ad2inistrative re2edies does not appl4, because nothin& of an ad2inistrative nature
is to be or can be done.
,1
The issue does not re<uire technical 6no#led&e and e=perience but one that #ould involve the
interpretation and application of la#.
Thus, #hile it is undisputed that the District (uditor of the !O( disapproved respondentAs clai2 a&ainst the
0overn2ent, and, under Section $*
,:
of P.D. No. '$$%, the ad2inistrative re2ed4 available to respondent is an appeal
of the denial of his clai2 b4 the District (uditor to the !O( itself, the !ourt holds that, in vie# of e=ceptions -c. and
-e. narrated above, the co2plaint for specific perfor2ance and da2a&es #as not pre2aturel4 filed and #ithin the
>urisdiction of the RT! to resolve, despite the failure to e=haust ad2inistrative re2edies. (s the !ourt aptl4 stated in
Roca2ora v. RT!/!ebu -"ranch VIII.7
,*
The plaintiffs #ere not supposed to hold their breath and #ait until the !o22ission on (udit and the Ministr4 of Public
Hi&h#a4s had acted on the clai2s for co2pensation for the lands appropriated b4 the &overn2ent. The road had been
co2pletedC the Pope had co2e and &oneC but the plaintiffs had 4et to be paid for the properties ta6en fro2 the2. 0iven
this official indifference, #hich apparentl4 #ould continue indefinitel4, the private respondents had to act to assert and
protect their interests.
,;
On the <uestion of #hether a contractor #ith an e=pired license is entitled to be paid for co2pleted pro>ects, Section ,%
of R.(. No. $%11 e=plicitl4 provides7
S!. ,%. Penalties. (n4 contractor #ho, for a price, co22ission, fee or #a&e, sub2its or atte2pts to sub2it a bid to
construct, or contracts to or underta6es to construct, or assu2es char&e in a supervisor4 capacit4 of a construction #or6
#ithin the purvie# of this (ct, #ithout first securin& a license to en&a&e in the business of contractin& in this countr4C
or #ho shall present or file the license certificate of another, &ive false evidence of an4 6ind to the "oard, or an4
2e2ber thereof in obtainin& a certificate or license, i2personate another, or use an e=pired or revo6ed certificate or
license, shall be dee2ed &uilt4 of 2isde2eanor, and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pa4 a fine of not less than
five hundred pesos but not 2ore than five thousand pesos. -2phasis supplied.
The 8plain 2eanin& rule8 or verba legis in statutor4 construction is that if the statute is clear, plain and free fro2
a2bi&uit4, it 2ust be &iven its literal 2eanin& and applied #ithout interpretation.
$+
This rule derived fro2 the 2a=i2
Index animi sermo est -speech is the inde= of intention. rests on the valid presu2ption that the #ords e2plo4ed b4 the
le&islature in a statute correctl4 e=press its intention or #ill and preclude the court fro2 construin& it differentl4. The
le&islature is presu2ed to 6no# the 2eanin& of the #ords, to have used #ords advisedl4, and to have e=pressed its
intent b4 use of such #ords as are found in the statute.
$'
Verba legis non est recedendum, or fro2 the #ords of a statute
there should be no departure.
$)
The #ordin&s of R.(. No. $%11 are clear. It does not declare, e=pressl4 or i2pliedl4, as void contracts entered into b4 a
contractor #hose license had alread4 e=pired. Nonetheless, such contractor is liable for pa42ent of the fine prescribed
therein. Thus, respondent should be paid for the pro>ects he co2pleted. Such pa42ent, ho#ever, is #ithout pre>udice to
the pa42ent of the fine prescribed under the la#.
"esides, (rticle )) of the !ivil !ode #hich e2bodies the 2a=i2 Ne2o e= alterius inco22ode debet lecupletari -no
2an ou&ht to be 2ade rich out of anotherAs in>ur4. states7
(rt. )). ver4 person #ho throu&h an act of perfor2ance b4 another, or an4 other 2eans, ac<uires or co2es into
possession of so2ethin& at the e=pense of the latter #ithout >ust or le&al &round, shall return the sa2e to hi2.
This article is part of the chapter of the !ivil !ode on Hu2an Relations, the provisions of #hich #ere for2ulated as
8basic principles to be observed for the ri&htful relationship bet#een hu2an bein&s and for the stabilit4 of the social
order, = = = desi&ned to indicate certain nor2s that sprin& fro2 the fountain of &ood conscience, = = = &uides hu2an
conduct HthatI should run as &olden threads throu&h societ4 to the end that la# 2a4 approach its supre2e ideal #hich is
the s#a4 and do2inance of >ustice.8
$,
The rules thereon appl4 e<uall4 #ell to the 0overn2ent.
$$
Since respondent had
rendered services to the full satisfaction and acceptance b4 petitioner, then the for2er should be co2pensated for the2.
To allo# petitioner to ac<uire the finished pro>ect at no cost #ould undoubtedl4 constitute un>ust enrich2ent for the
petitioner to the pre>udice of respondent. Such un>ust enrich2ent is not allo#ed b4 la#.
@HR3OR, the present petition is (ENIE( for lac6 of 2erit. The assailed Decision of the !ourt of (ppeals dated
(pril )*, )++, in !(/0.R. !V No. %1,$% is )FFIRME(. No pronounce2ent as to costs.
SO ORDRD.
M). )LICI) )USTRI)2M)RTINE3
(ssociate 9ustice
@ !ON!DR7
CONSUELO ,N)RES2S)NTI)GO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
-On 5eave.
ROMEO 4. C)LLE4O, SR.
(ssociate 9ustice
MINIT) 5. CHICO2N)3)RIO
(sscociate 9ustice
)NTONIO E(U)R(O B. N)CHUR)
(ssociate 9ustice
) T T E S T ) T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case #as assi&ned to the
#riter of the opinion of the !ourtAs Division.
CONSUELO ,N)RES2S)NTI)GO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third ivision
! R T I 3 I ! ( T I O N
Pursuant to Section ',, (rticle VIII of the !onstitution, and the Division !hairpersonAs attestation, it is hereb4 certified
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case #as assi&ned to the #riter
of the opinion of the !ourtAs Division.
RE,N)TO S. PUNO
Chie! Justice
Foo$#o$"
'
Penned b4 (ssociate 9ustice Ros2ari D. !arandan& and concurred in b4 (ssociate 9ustices !onrado M.
Vas<ueG, 9r. and Mercedes 0oGo/Dadole, !( rollo, p. '1:.
)
Ori&inal Records, p. ')+.
,
Id. at :.
$
Id. at *.
%
Id. at ').
1
!( rollo, p. )1*.
:
Ori&inal Records, p. ')/(.
*
Id. at ',.
;
Id. at '$.
'+
Id. at '%.
''
Ibid.
')
Id. at '1.
',
Id.
'$
Id. at '.
'%
Id. at ,:.
'1
Id. at $*.
':
Id. at %+.
'*
Id. at %*.
';
Id. at 1:.
)+
Id. at :*.
)'
Id. at ')%.
))
Id. at ')$/')%.
),
!( rollo, p. ':.
)$
Id. at ):,.
)%
Id. at ,,.
)1
S!. ) -'. The !o22ission on (udit shall have the po#er, authorit4, and dut4 to e=a2ine, audit and
settle all accounts pertainin& to the revenue and receipts of, and e=penditures or uses of funds and
propert4, o#ned or held in trust b4, or pertainin& to, the 0overn2ent, or an4 of its subdivisions, a&encies,
or instru2entalities, includin& &overn2ent/o#ned or controlled corporations #ith ori&inal charters, and
on a post/audit basis7 -a. constitutional bodies, co22ission and offices that have been &ranted fiscal
autono24 under this !onstitutionC -b. autono2ous state colle&es and universitiesC -c. other &overn2ent/
o#ned or controlled corporations and their subsidiariesC and -d. such non/&overn2ental entities
receivin& subsid4 or e<uit4, directl4 or indirectl4, fro2 or throu&h the 0overn2ent, #hich are re<uired
b4 la# or the &rantin& institution to sub2it to such audit as a condition of subsid4 or e<uit4. Ho#ever,
#here the internal control s4ste2 of the audited a&encies is inade<uate, the !o22ission 2a4 adopt such
2easures, includin& te2porar4 or special pre/audit, as are necessar4 and appropriate to correct the
deficiencies. It shall 6eep the &eneral accounts of the 0overn2ent and for such period as 2a4 be
provided b4 la#, preserve the vouchers and other supportin& papers pertainin& thereto.
):
Section )1. 0eneral >urisdiction. B The authorit4 and po#ers of the !o22ission shall e=tend to and
co2prehend all 2atters relatin& to auditin& procedures, s4ste2s and controls, the 6eepin& of the &eneral
accounts of the 0overn2ent, the preservation of vouchers pertainin& thereto for a period of ten 4ears, the
e=a2ination and inspection of the boo6s, records, and papers relatin& to those accountsC and the audit
and settle2ent of the accounts of all persons respectin& funds or propert4 received or held b4 the2 in an
accountable capacit4, as #ell as the e=a2ination, audit, and settle2ent of all debts and clai2s of an4 sort
due fro2 or o#in& the 0overn2ent or an4 of its subdivisions, a&encies and instru2entalities. The said
>urisdiction e=tends to all &overn2ent/o#ned or controlled corporations, includin& their subsidiaries, and
other self/&overnin& boards, co22issions, or a&encies of the 0overn2ent, and as herein prescribed,
includin& non/&overn2ental entities subsidiGed b4 the &overn2ent, those funded b4 donation throu&h the
&overn2ent, those re<uired to pa4 levies of &overn2ent share, and those #hich the &overn2ent has put
up a counterpart fund or those partl4 funded b4 the &overn2ent.
)*
"ollo, p. '%).
);
(!@S, 5td. v. Du2lao, $$+ Phil. :*:, *+'/*+) -)++).C Jabat v. !ourt of (ppeals, ,;, Phil. ';%, )+1
-)+++..
,+
AC#S case, id. at *+).
,'
Palo2a v. Mora, 0.R. No. '%::*,, Septe2ber ),, )++%, $:+ S!R( :'', :)%C 3abia v. !ourt of
(ppeals, $,: Phil. ,*;, $+, -)++)..
,)
Roca2ora v. Re&ional Trial !ourt/!ebu -"ranch VIII., No. 5/1%+,:, Nove2ber ),, ';**, '1: S!R(
1'%, 1),.
,,
!arale v. (barintos, ,,1 Phil. ')1, ',: -';;:..
,$
!astro v. Sec. 0loria, $'% Phil. 1$%, 1%'/1%) -)++'..
,%
!astro v. Sec. 0loria case, id. at 1%).
,1
spina v. !ourt of (ppeals, ,%1 Phil. '%, )' -';;*.C Prudential "an6 v. 0apultos, 0.R. Nos. $'*,% K
$;);,, 9anuar4 ';, ';;+, '*' S!R( '%;, '1*.
,:
Section $*. (ppeal fro2 the decision of auditors. B (n4 person a&&rieved b4 the decision of an auditor
of an4 &overn2ent a&enc4 in the settle2ent of account or clai2 2a4 #ithin si= 2onths fro2 receipt of a
cop4 of the decision appeal in #ritin& to the !o22ission.
,*
Supra note ,).
,;
Id. at 1)$/1)%.
$+
!o22issioner of Internal Revenue v. !entral 5uGon Dru& !orporation, 0.R. No. '%;1$:, (pril '%,
)++%, $%1 S!R( $'$, $$,C $ational %ederation o! &abor v' $ational &abor "elations Commission, ,*,
Phil. ;'+, ;'* -)+++.C Ruben . (&palo, Statutor4 !onstruction, )++, d., p. ')$.
$'
Southern !ross !e2ent !orporation v. Philippine !e2ent Manufacturers !orporation, 0.R. No.
'%*%$+, 9ul4 *, )++$, $,$ S!R( 1%, ;,C Republic v. !ourt of (ppeals, ,%; Phil. %,+, 1+) -)+++.'
$)
n>a4, Inc. v. National 5abor Relations !o22ission, ,'% Phil. 1$*, 1%1 -';;%.C 0lobe/Mac6a4 !able
and Radio !orporation v. National 5abor Relations !o22ission, 0.R. No. *)%'', March ,, ';;), )+1
S!R( :+', :''.
$,
(dvanced 3oundation !onstruction S4ste2s !orporation v. Ne# @orld Properties and Ventures, Inc.,
0.R. Nos. '$,'%$ K '$,'::, 9une )', )++1, $;' S!R( %%:, %:*C Securit4 "an6 K Trust !o. v. !ourt of
(ppeals, ,'; Phil. ,'), ,': -';;%., citin& Report of the !ode !o22ission, p. ,;, cited in Padilla,
(2brosio, !ivil !ode (nnotated, Vol. ', ';:%.
$$
Pal2a Develop2ent !orp. v. Municipalit4 of Malan&as, Ja2boan&a Del Sur, $%; Phil. '+$), '+%+
-)++,.C Republic v. !ourt of (ppeals, No. 5/,',+,/+$, Ma4 ,', ';:*, *, S!R( $%,, $*+.
The 5a#phil Pro>ect / (rellano 5a# 3oundation