ASG Law

Tag: Suspension of Proceedings

  • Prejudicial Question Doctrine: Suspension vs. Withdrawal of Criminal Action

    In Carandang v. Ragasa, the Supreme Court clarified the proper procedure when a prejudicial question exists in a criminal case. The Court held that the existence of a prejudicial question warrants the suspension of the criminal proceedings, not the withdrawal of the information. This ruling ensures that criminal proceedings are not prematurely terminated when a related civil case could determine the accused’s guilt or innocence. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in criminal litigation and protects the interests of both the accused and the state.

    Navigating the Crossroads: Perjury and Prejudicial Questions in Corporate Disputes

    The case of Arcadio M. Carandang v. Edgar A. Ragasa arose from a corporate dispute within Mabuhay Broadcasting System (MBS). Arcadio Carandang and his wife, Ma. Luisa Carandang, along with Edgar Ragasa, were stockholders and officers of MBS. The dispute escalated when the Carandangs filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking their installation as director/vice-president and director, respectively, claiming they were elected during a stockholders’ meeting on January 10, 1992. Ragasa opposed this, asserting that no such meeting occurred on that date, but rather on February 8, 1992, during which the Carandangs were not elected. This conflict led to a series of legal battles, including charges of perjury and falsification of documents between the parties.

    The legal quagmire deepened when Ragasa filed criminal charges of perjury, falsification of public documents, and use of falsified documents against Carandang and his wife, alleging they lied under oath in their SEC petition. Carandang and his wife retaliated with a complaint against Ragasa for falsification of public documents and/or use of falsified documents, claiming the February 8, 1992 meeting was fabricated. The City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City dismissed Carandang’s case against Ragasa but found probable cause for perjury against Carandang alone, stating:

    [In] the petition for mandamus being verified by [petitioner] in the [SEC], he made an assertion of falsehood under oath, knowing fully well that there was no annual stockholders’ meeting on 10 January 1992, and the 8 February 1992 stockholders’ meeting and election results is (sic) the annual stockholders’ meeting recognized and on file with the SEC. The assertion of falsehood is material as it is the very basis of the [Sps.] Carandang’s Petition to be installed as officer/director of MBS.

    Following this resolution, an Information for perjury was filed against Carandang in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Carandang then filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The MeTC initially suspended the arraignment pending the DOJ’s action. However, after two years of inaction, Ragasa moved to lift the suspension, which the MeTC granted, setting the case for arraignment and pre-trial. Subsequently, then DOJ Secretary Serafin R. Cuevas ordered the City Prosecutor to withdraw the perjury case, citing the existence of a prejudicial question, reasoning:

    The issue as to which meeting should be recognized as valid and regular is a prejudicial question which must first be resolved. This issue is intimately connected with, and determinative of, the central issue in the present complaints, e.g. [,] who among the parties made a false declaration regarding the 1992 annual stockholders meeting of the MBS. [Also] [w]ithout the resolution on the SEC case, there can be no competent proof on who committed perjury or falsification.

    The City Prosecutor complied, and the MeTC granted the withdrawal. Ragasa, instead of appealing the MeTC’s decision, filed a motion for reconsideration with the DOJ, which was denied, leading him to seek recourse with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA sided with Ragasa, holding that the DOJ Secretary had committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA emphasized that the proper course of action, even if a prejudicial question existed, was to suspend the criminal case, not to withdraw it, aligning with Rule 111, Section 6 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Rule 111, Section 6 states:

    Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question may be filed in the office of the fiscal or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests.

    Carandang then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, agreeing that the DOJ Secretary’s action was unwarranted and not in accordance with Rule 111, Section 6 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court clarified that the existence of a prejudicial question necessitates the suspension, not the withdrawal, of the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the CA did not err in applying Rule 111, Section 6. The Court pointed out that the provision does not specify who may file the motion for suspension, indicating that the right is not exclusive to the accused. It is a fundamental principle that where the law does not distinguish, neither should the courts, as expressed in the maxim Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus.

    The Supreme Court also addressed Carandang’s argument that the MeTC’s order granting the withdrawal of the perjury case had become final, thus barring its re-filing. The Court clarified that while an order granting a motion to dismiss becomes final and bars the re-filing of the same case, an order granting a motion to withdraw an Information does not have the same effect. Citing Torres v. Aguinaldo, the Supreme Court reiterated that an order granting the withdrawal of an Information attains finality after fifteen days from receipt, but it is without prejudice to the re-filing of the Information upon reinvestigation. The dismissal is without prejudice to its re-filing.

    Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed Carandang’s claim that the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of the petition. The Court found that Carandang did receive a copy of the petition and voluntarily submitted pleadings, thereby submitting to the court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that the CA’s decision was correct and should be affirmed. The Court ordered the re-filing of the criminal case for perjury against Carandang, emphasizing the need to resolve the long-standing dispute. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural rules in criminal proceedings and the principle that the existence of a prejudicial question warrants suspension, not withdrawal, of the criminal action.

    FAQs

    What is a prejudicial question? A prejudicial question is an issue that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in another case, and the jurisdiction to pass upon such issue is lodged in a different tribunal.
    What is the effect of a prejudicial question on a criminal case? If a prejudicial question exists, the criminal proceeding should be suspended until the related civil case is resolved. This is to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure a fair determination of the accused’s guilt or innocence.
    What is the difference between withdrawing an Information and dismissing a case? Withdrawing an Information means the prosecutor seeks to remove the charges temporarily, which can be re-filed later. Dismissing a case, on the other hand, terminates the legal action, and it cannot be re-filed if the dismissal is with prejudice.
    Who can file a motion to suspend criminal proceedings due to a prejudicial question? According to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the provision is silent as to who may file the motion or petition. It’s not exclusive to the accused. A public prosecutor can also ask that the proceedings be held in abeyance especially if a prejudicial question exists.
    What was the basis of the Court of Appeals’ decision? The CA found that the DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion by ordering the withdrawal of the perjury case instead of suspending it, as required by the Rules of Criminal Procedure when a prejudicial question exists.
    Can a case be re-filed after it has been withdrawn? Yes, a case can be re-filed after it has been withdrawn, provided that the order granting the withdrawal of the Information is without prejudice to its re-filing upon reinvestigation.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the CA’s jurisdiction over the petitioner? The Supreme Court held that the CA did acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner because he received a copy of the petition and voluntarily submitted pleadings, thereby submitting to the court’s authority.
    What was the final order of the Supreme Court in this case? The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, directing the re-filing of the criminal case for perjury against Carandang.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Carandang v. Ragasa reinforces the procedural safeguards in place to ensure fairness and justice in criminal proceedings. By clarifying the distinction between suspending and withdrawing a criminal case when a prejudicial question arises, the Court provided clear guidance for future cases involving similar circumstances. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal process and protecting the rights of all parties involved.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Carandang v. Ragasa, G.R. No. 161829, April 13, 2007

  • Confidentiality vs. Transparency: When Can a Civil Case Proceed Alongside a Lawyer’s Disciplinary Hearing in the Philippines?

    Balancing Confidentiality and Justice: Understanding When a Civil Case Can Proceed Alongside a Lawyer’s Disciplinary Hearing

    TLDR: This case clarifies that civil cases against lawyers can generally proceed even while administrative disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. The confidentiality rule in lawyer disciplinary cases is meant to protect the integrity of the investigation, not to shield lawyers from civil liability or halt civil actions, especially when the civil case is not initiated to circumvent the confidentiality rule. The Supreme Court emphasizes the distinct nature of civil and administrative proceedings, ensuring both justice for private parties and professional accountability for lawyers.

    G.R. NO. 121404, May 03, 2006

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine being caught in a legal battle on two fronts: a civil lawsuit threatening your finances and reputation, and a simultaneous administrative case questioning your professional conduct. This was the predicament faced by Attorney Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. He sought to halt a civil case against him, fearing it would prematurely expose a confidential administrative complaint filed by the same person, Sally V. Bellosillo. This case delves into the delicate balance between protecting the confidentiality of lawyer disciplinary proceedings and ensuring the timely administration of justice in civil disputes. The central legal question: Can a civil court case be suspended simply because a related administrative case against the lawyer is pending, citing confidentiality concerns?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST LAWYERS

    The heart of Attorney Saludo’s argument rests on Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, which mandates that “proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential.” This rule is not arbitrary; it serves several crucial purposes. First, it allows the Supreme Court, or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as its designated investigator, to conduct inquiries into lawyer misconduct without undue influence or public pressure. This ensures impartial fact-finding. Second, it safeguards the reputation of lawyers from potentially baseless accusations. As the Supreme Court itself noted, this protection extends to preventing “baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive, and irresponsible clients and litigants.” The confidentiality rule also aims to prevent media sensationalism and premature judgment by discouraging unauthorized publication of administrative complaints.

    However, this confidentiality is not absolute. Crucially, the rule explicitly states, “However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.” This exception underscores that while the *process* is confidential, the *outcome*, especially if disciplinary action is warranted, becomes public record to maintain transparency and public trust in the legal profession. It’s vital to understand that administrative cases against lawyers are *sui generis* – unique. They are neither purely civil nor criminal. As the Supreme Court cited in *Berbano v. Barcelona*, disciplinary proceedings are investigations into a lawyer’s fitness to practice law, primarily concerned with upholding the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice. They are not about punishment in a criminal sense, nor are they strictly about resolving private disputes like civil cases.

    The rules of court also explicitly limit the grounds for suspending civil actions. Rule 30, Section 8, referencing Article 2030 of the Civil Code, states that suspension is primarily considered when there is a “possibility of a compromise” or an offer to compromise. Confidentiality of an administrative case is not listed as a ground for suspending a civil action.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: SALUDO VS. COURT OF APPEALS

    The case began when Sally V. Bellosillo filed a civil case (Civil Case No. 88-2181) against Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. Simultaneously, Bellosillo filed an administrative case against Saludo with the IBP for Gross Professional Misconduct/Malpractice. Saludo, fearing the civil case would expose the confidential administrative proceedings, filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in the civil case. He argued that proceeding with the civil trial would inevitably make the administrative case public, violating Rule 139-B.

    The RTC denied Saludo’s motion, and his subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also rejected. Undeterred, Saludo elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Certiorari. The CA, however, also dismissed his petition, prompting him to bring the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), halting the civil case while they deliberated.

    However, a significant event occurred while the case was pending before the Supreme Court: the administrative case before the IBP was resolved. The Supreme Court, in a separate decision (G.R. No. 126980, March 31, 2006), ultimately dismissed Bellosillo’s administrative complaint against Saludo. The Court found that Bellosillo failed to establish a *prima facie* case of professional misconduct, characterizing their dealings as ordinary business transactions, not arising from an attorney-client relationship.

    This dismissal of the administrative case became the turning point. The Supreme Court, in this *Saludo* case, declared the petition moot. Since the administrative case was already concluded and dismissed, Saludo’s fear of premature disclosure was no longer a valid concern. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the confidentiality rule had been served, and there was no longer any administrative proceeding whose confidentiality needed protection in this context. The Court highlighted several key points in its decision:

    • Distinct Nature of Proceedings: Civil, criminal, and administrative cases are distinct. Outcomes in one do not automatically dictate the outcome in another.
    • Purpose of Confidentiality: The confidentiality rule aims to ensure impartial investigation and protect lawyers from baseless charges, not to create blanket immunity from civil suits.
    • No Automatic Suspension: The pendency of an administrative case is not an automatic ground to suspend a related civil case, especially when the civil case is not a deliberate attempt to circumvent the confidentiality rule.

    As the Court stated, “Enabling the court to keep administrative investigations free of extraneous influence or interference essentially calls for independence and impartiality… It does not, however, exclude the possibility of simultaneously commencing a judicial case against a lawyer who is being administratively investigated.” Further, quoting *Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza*, the Court reiterated, “[A] finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, respondent’s acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him administratively. In the same vein, the trial court’s finding of civil liability against the respondent will not inexorably lead to a similar finding in the administrative action before this Court. Neither will a favorable disposition in the civil action absolve the administrative liability of the lawyer. x x x.”

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: NAVIGATING SIMULTANEOUS LEGAL BATTLES

    This case provides critical guidance for lawyers and individuals facing simultaneous civil and administrative actions in the Philippines. The key takeaway is that the confidentiality of administrative proceedings under Rule 139-B is not a shield against related civil lawsuits. Lawyers cannot automatically expect civil cases to be suspended simply because an administrative complaint is pending against them, even if the cases are related or stem from similar facts. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of allowing civil cases to proceed without undue delay, ensuring that private parties have their day in court to resolve their disputes.

    For lawyers facing administrative complaints, this case serves as a reminder that they must still defend themselves in any parallel civil actions. They cannot rely on the confidentiality rule to halt civil proceedings. Instead, they should focus on effectively managing both cases, ensuring their defense in each forum is robust and strategically sound.

    For individuals considering filing both civil and administrative cases against a lawyer, this ruling confirms their right to pursue both avenues of redress simultaneously. The confidentiality of the administrative case should not deter them from pursuing their civil claims in court.

    Key Lessons:

    • Distinct Legal Arenas: Civil and administrative cases are separate and distinct. The progress of one generally does not dictate the suspension of the other.
    • Limited Scope of Confidentiality: The confidentiality rule in Rule 139-B is designed to protect the integrity of administrative investigations, not to shield lawyers from civil liability or delay civil justice.
    • No Automatic Suspension: Courts will not automatically suspend civil cases based solely on the pendency of related administrative cases against a lawyer.
    • Duty to Defend on Both Fronts: Lawyers facing simultaneous cases must actively defend themselves in both civil and administrative proceedings.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: Does filing an administrative case against a lawyer automatically stop any related civil cases?

    A: No. As clarified in *Saludo v. Court of Appeals*, the pendency of an administrative case is generally not a valid ground to suspend a related civil case in the Philippines.

    Q2: What is the purpose of the confidentiality rule in administrative cases against lawyers?

    A: The confidentiality rule in Rule 139-B aims to ensure impartial investigations into lawyer misconduct, protect lawyers’ reputations from baseless charges during the investigation phase, and prevent undue public pressure or media interference.

    Q3: When can a civil case be suspended in the Philippines?

    A: Under Rule 30, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, referencing Article 2030 of the Civil Code, civil actions can primarily be suspended when there is a possibility of compromise between the parties.

    Q4: Can information from a confidential administrative case against a lawyer be used in a related civil case?

    A: While the administrative proceedings themselves are confidential, evidence and facts may overlap. The admissibility of specific evidence in the civil case will be determined by the rules of evidence in civil procedure, independent of the confidentiality rule in administrative cases.

    Q5: What should a lawyer do if facing both a civil case and an administrative case arising from the same set of facts?

    A: A lawyer should seek legal counsel immediately to strategize and manage both cases effectively. They must prepare separate defenses for each case, understanding the distinct nature and procedures of civil and administrative proceedings.

    Q6: Is it possible for the media to report on administrative cases against lawyers?

    A: Premature and unauthorized publication of administrative complaints can be considered contempt of court. However, the final decisions of the Supreme Court in administrative cases are made public.

    Q7: Does a dismissal of an administrative case mean the lawyer is also cleared of any civil liability?

    A: No. Administrative and civil cases are distinct. A dismissal in one forum does not automatically guarantee a favorable outcome in the other. The standards of proof and the issues involved are different.

    ASG Law specializes in litigation and civil law in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Balancing Possession and Ownership: When Courts May Suspend Ejectment Proceedings

    The Supreme Court has clarified that while ejectment suits generally proceed independently of ownership disputes, exceptions arise when enforcing an ejectment order would cause significant injustice. Specifically, when the core issue involves a genuine claim of ownership—not just a lease dispute—and the execution of the ejectment would result in the demolition of a house, courts may suspend the ejectment proceedings. This ensures a fair resolution where substantive ownership rights are not prejudiced by a summary possession order.

    House on Disputed Land: Can an Ejectment Proceed If Ownership Is Unclear?

    In Concepcion v. Marayag, the central question before the Supreme Court was whether an ejectment case should be suspended while a related case concerning the ownership of the property was still being decided. The petitioners, the Amagans, were facing eviction from land they claimed to own, where their house stood. The respondent, Teodorico Marayag, had filed an ejectment suit based on the claim that the Amagans’ occupation was merely tolerated. The Amagans, however, asserted ownership and had filed a separate action to quiet title, seeking to definitively establish their ownership rights. The resolution of this issue would determine who was entitled to possession of the premises.

    The general rule in Philippine jurisprudence is that an ejectment suit should not be delayed or stopped by the filing of another case involving ownership of the same property. This principle is rooted in the summary nature of ejectment proceedings, which are designed to provide a quick resolution to disputes over physical possession. The Supreme Court has consistently held that ejectment actions are intended to prevent disruption of public order by those who would take the law into their own hands to enforce their claimed right of possession.

    However, the Court also recognized exceptions to this rule, particularly when equitable considerations come into play. One such exception was established in Vda. de Legaspi v. Avendaño, which held that when the right of the plaintiff in an ejectment case is seriously placed in issue in another judicial proceeding, it may be more equitable to suspend the ejectment case pending the resolution of the ownership issue. This exception is especially applicable when the execution of the ejectment decision would result in significant and irreversible consequences, such as the demolition of a structure.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court in Concepcion v. Marayag emphasized the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case. The Court noted that the action was not based on an expired lease or a violated contract but on the claim of “mere tolerance”. Moreover, the Court highlighted that the execution of the ejectment order in this case would result in the demolition of the Amagans’ house. It found that allowing the demolition of a house before resolving the question of land ownership would be injudicious and inequitable. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

    “Admittedly, petitioners who appealed the judgment in the ejectment case did not file a supersedeas bond. Neither have they been depositing the compensation for their use and occupation of the property in question as determined by the trial court. Ordinarily, these circumstances would justify an execution pending appeal. However, there are circumstances attendant to this case which would render immediate execution injudicious and inequitable.”

    This approach contrasts with cases where the issue is simply one of unlawful detainer based on a lease agreement, where the rights are more clearly defined and the consequences of eviction are less severe. In such cases, the Court has generally been less inclined to suspend ejectment proceedings. To further clarify, the Court differentiated between cases where the claim to possession arises from a clear contractual agreement (such as a lease) and those where it stems from a disputed claim of ownership. Contractual agreements provide a clearer framework for determining rights and obligations, making the ejectment process more straightforward. However, when ownership is genuinely disputed, the equities shift, and the Court is more willing to consider suspending ejectment pending resolution of the ownership issue.

    To underscore the importance of balancing legal and equitable considerations, the Court emphasized that the ultimate goal is to prevent injustice and ensure that substantive rights are protected. This involves carefully weighing the potential harm to both parties and considering the broader implications of the decision. The facts of the case reveal that the Amagans had been occupying the property since 1937. Therefore, their claim to the property was not frivolous, and the potential demolition of their house warranted a more cautious approach.

    Moreover, the Court pointed out that the Court of Appeals had previously made factual findings that supported the suspension of the ejectment proceedings. These findings, which were binding on the parties, highlighted the serious nature of the ownership dispute and the potential for irreparable harm. The legal framework for ejectment proceedings aims to strike a balance between protecting the rights of property owners and ensuring that disputes over possession are resolved quickly and efficiently. However, as this case illustrates, strict adherence to procedural rules can sometimes lead to unjust outcomes, particularly when fundamental issues such as ownership are at stake.

    In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion v. Marayag provides valuable guidance on the circumstances under which ejectment proceedings may be suspended due to pending ownership disputes. The ruling underscores the importance of considering equitable factors and the potential consequences of immediate execution, particularly when it involves the demolition of a dwelling. It also balances property rights and prevents injustice, ensuring fair legal outcomes.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether an ejectment case should be suspended pending the resolution of a separate case concerning the ownership of the property in dispute.
    What is the general rule regarding ejectment suits and ownership disputes? Generally, an ejectment suit is not abated or suspended by another action raising ownership of the property as an issue. The goal of an ejectment case is to quickly resolve physical possession of the property.
    Under what circumstances can an ejectment suit be suspended? An ejectment suit can be suspended in rare instances, such as when the plaintiff’s right to recover the premises is seriously placed in issue in another judicial proceeding, and the execution of the ejectment decision would result in significant and irreversible consequences, such as the demolition of a structure.
    What was the basis for the Court’s decision to suspend the ejectment proceedings in this case? The Court’s decision was based on equitable considerations, including the fact that the execution of the ejectment order would result in the demolition of the Amagans’ house, and that the ownership dispute was a serious one.
    How did this case differ from a typical ejectment case based on a lease agreement? This case differed because the claim to possession was not based on a contractual agreement (such as a lease) but on a disputed claim of ownership. Cases based on contracts have clearer defined rights making this case more amenable to suspension.
    What prior ruling was essential to the Court’s decision in Concepcion v. Marayag? The prior ruling in Vda. de Legaspi v. Avendaño was essential, as it established the exception to the general rule, allowing for suspension when the issue of legal possession is seriously contested and the execution would cause significant disturbance.
    What should homeowners do if they are facing ejectment from property they claim to own? Homeowners should immediately seek legal counsel, file a separate action to quiet title to establish their ownership, and seek a preliminary injunction to restrain the ejectment pending the resolution of the ownership issue.
    What is the significance of the Court of Appeals’ prior factual findings in this case? The Court of Appeals’ prior factual findings, which were binding on the parties, highlighted the serious nature of the ownership dispute and the potential for irreparable harm, supporting the suspension of the ejectment proceedings.

    In conclusion, Concepcion v. Marayag clarifies the balance between procedural efficiency and equitable considerations in ejectment cases. It provides a crucial reminder that courts must consider the specific circumstances of each case and ensure that the enforcement of property rights does not lead to unjust outcomes.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: CONCEPCION V. AMAGAN, G.R. No. 138377, February 28, 2000