TodayisTuesday,July19,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.156252June27,2006
COCACOLABOTTLERSPHILIPPINES,INC.,Petitioner,
vs.
CITYOFMANILA,LIBERTYM.TOLEDOCityTreasurerandJOSEPHSANTIAGOChief,Licensing
Division,Respondents.
DECISION
CHICONAZARIO,J.:
BeforeUsisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,assailingthe
Order1oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofManila,Branch21,dated8May2002,dismissingpetitionersPetition
forInjunction,andtheOrder2dated5December2002,denyingpetitionersMotionforReconsideration.
Petitioner CocaCola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and
sellingbeveragesandmaintainsasalesofficelocatedintheCityofManila.
On25February2000,theCityMayorofManilaapprovedTaxOrdinanceNo.7988,otherwiseknownas"Revised
Revenue Code of the City of Manila" repealing Tax Ordinance No. 7794 entitled, "Revenue Code of the City of
Manila." Tax Ordinance No. 7988 amended certain sections of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 by increasing the tax
ratesapplicabletocertainestablishmentsoperatingwithintheterritorialjurisdictionoftheCityofManila,including
hereinpetitioner.
Aggrievedbysaidtaxordinance,petitionerfiledaPetition3beforetheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ),againstthe
City of Manila and its Sangguniang Panlungsod, invoking Section 1874 of the Local Government Code of 1991
(RepublicActNo.7160).SaidPetitionquestionstheconstitutionalityorlegalityofSection21ofTaxOrdinanceNo.
7988.Accordingtopetitioner:
Section21oftheOldRevenueCodeoftheCityofManila(OrdinanceNo.7794,asamended)wasreproduced
verbatimasSection21underthenewOrdinanceexceptforthelastparagraphthereofwhichreads:"PROVIDED,
that all registered businesses in the City of Manila that are already paying the aforementioned tax shall be
exempted from payment thereof", which was deleted that said deletion would, in effect, impose additional
businesstaxonbusinesses,includinghereinpetitioner,thatarealreadysubjecttobusinesstaxundertheother
sections,specificallySec.14,oftheNewRevenueCodeoftheCityofManila,whichimposition,petitionerclaims,
"isbeyondorexceedsthelimitationonthetaxingpoweroftheCityofManilaunderSec.143(h)oftheLGCof
1991andthatdeletionisapalpableandmanifestviolationoftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991,andtheclear
mandateofArticleX,Sec.5ofthe1987Constitution,henceSection21is"illegalandunconstitutional."
On 17 August 2000, then DOJ Secretary Artemio G. Tuquero issued a Resolution declaring Tax Ordinance No.
7988nullandvoidandwithoutlegaleffect,thepertinentportionsofwhichread:
After a judicious scrutiny of the records of this case, in the light of the pertinent provisions of the Local
GovernmentCodeof1991,thisDepartmentfindsforthepetitioner.
TheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991provides:
"Section188.PublicationofTaxOrdinancesandRevenueMeasures.Withinten(10)daysaftertheirapproval,
certifiedtruecopiesofallprovincial,cityandmunicipaltaxordinancesorrevenuemeasuresshallbepublishedin
fullforthree(3)consecutivedaysinanewspaperoflocalcirculationProvided,however,thatinprovinces,cities,
andmunicipalitieswheretherearenonewspapersorlocalcirculationsthesamemaybepostedinatleasttwo(2)
conspicuousandpubliclyaccessibleplaces."(R.A.No.7160)(stresssupplied)

Upontheotherhand,theRulesandRegulationsImplementingtheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991,insofaras
pertinent,mandates:
"Art.277.PublicationofTaxOrdinancesandRevenueMeasures.(a)withinten(10)daysaftertheirapproval,
certifiedtruecopiesofallprovincial,cityandmunicipaltaxordinancesorrevenuemeasuresshallbepublishedin
full for three (3) consecutive days in a newspaper of local circulation provided that in provinces, cities and
municipalities where there are no newspapers of local circulation, the same may be posted in at least two (2)
conspicuousandpubliclyaccessibleplaces.
IfthetaxordinancesorrevenuemeasurecontainspenalprovisionsasauthorizedunderArt.279ofthisRule,the
gistofsuchtaxordinanceorrevenuemeasureshallbepublishedinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationwithinthe
province,postingofsuchordinanceormeasureshallbemadeinaccessibleandconspicuouspublicplacesinall
municipalities and cities of the province to which the sanggunian enacting the ordinance or revenue measure
belongs.
xxxxxxxxx."
(emphasisours)
ItisclearfromtheabovequotedprovisionsofR.A.No.7160anditsimplementingrulesthattherequirementof
publication is MANDATORY and leaves no choice. The use of the word "shall" in both provisions is imperative,
operatingtoimposeadutythatmaybeenforced(Socov.Militante,123SCRA160,167ModernCoachCorp.v.
Faver173SE2d497,499).
Itsessenceissimplytoinformthepeopleandtheentitieswhomaylikelybeaffected,oftheexistenceofthetax
measure. It bears emphasis, that, strict observance of the said procedural requirement is the only safeguard
against any unjust and unreasonable exercise of the taxing powers by ensuring that the taxpayers are notified
throughpublicationoftheexistenceofthemeasure,andarethereforeabletovoiceouttheirviewsorobjections
tothesaidmeasure.For,afterall,taxesareobligatoryexactionsorenforcedcontributionscorollarytotakingof
property.
xxxx
Inthecaseatbar,respondents,byitsfailuretofiletheircommentsandpresentdocumentaryevidencetoshow
that the mandatory requirement of law on publication, among other things, has been met, may be deemed to
havewaiveditsrighttocontrovertordisputethedocumentaryevidencesubmittedbypetitionerwhichindubitably
showthatsubjecttaxordinancewaspublishedonlyonce,i.e.,ontheMay22,2000issueofthePhilippinePost.
Clearly,therefore,hereinrespondentsfailedtosatisfytherequirementthatsaidordinanceshallbepublishedfor
three(3)consecutivedaysasrequiredbylaw.
xxxx
Inviewoftheforegoing,wefinditunnecessarytopassupontheotherissuesraisedbythepetitioner.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,TaxOrdinanceNo.7988oftheCityofManilaisherebydeclaredNULLand
VOID and WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT for having been enacted in contravention of the provisions of the Local
GovernmentCodeof1991anditsimplementingrulesandregulations.5
The City of Manila failed to file a Motion for Reconsideration nor lodge an appeal of said Resolution, thus, said
ResolutionoftheDOJSecretarydeclaringTaxOrdinanceNo.7988nullandvoidhaslapsedintofinality.
On 16 November 2000, Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio wrote the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF)
requestinginbehalfofhisclient,SingerSewingMachineCompany,anopiniononwhethertheOfficeoftheCity
Treasurer of Manila has the right to enforce Tax Ordinance No. 7988 despite the Resolution, dated 17 August
2000, of the DOJ Secretary. Acting on said letter, the BLGF Executive Director issued an Indorsement on 20
November 2000 ordering the City Treasurer of Manila to "cease and desist" from enforcing Tax Ordinance No.
7988.AccordingtotheBLGF:
IntheattachedResolutiondatedAugust17,2000oftheDepartmentofJustice,itisstatedthat"xxxOrdinance
No.7988oftheCityofManilaisherebydeclaredNULLANDVOIDANDWITHOUTLEGALEFFECTforhaving
been enacted in contravention of the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991 and its implementing
rulesandregulations."
xxxx
Inviewthereof,thatOfficeisherebyinstructedtoceaseanddesistfromimplementingtheaforementionedManila
TaxOrdinanceNo.7988,invitingattentiontoSection190oftheLocalGovernmentCode(LGC)of1991,quoted
hereunder:

"Section190.AttempttoEnforceVoidorSuspendedTaxOrdinancesandRevenueMeasures.Theenforcement
of any tax ordinance or revenue measures after due notice of the disapproval or suspension thereof shall be
sufficient ground to administrative disciplinary action against the local officials and employees responsible
therefore."
Beguidedaccordingly.6
DespitetheResolutionoftheDOJdeclaringTaxOrdinanceNo.7988nullandvoidandthedirectiveoftheBLGF
thatrespondentsceaseanddesistfromenforcingsaidtaxordinance,respondentscontinuedtoassesspetitioner
businesstaxfortheyear2001basedonthetaxratesprescribedunderTaxOrdinanceNo.7988.Thus,petitioner
filedaComplaintwiththeRTCofManila,Branch21,on17January2001,prayingthatrespondentsbeenjoined
fromimplementingtheaforementionedtaxordinance.
On 28 November 2001, the RTC of Manila, Branch 21, rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner, the decretal
portionofwhichstates:
ThedefendantsdidnotfollowtheprocedureintheenactmentofTaxOrdinanceNo.7988.TheCourtagreeswith
plaintiffscontentionthattheordinanceshouldfirstbepublishedforthree(3)consecutivedaysinanewspaperof
localcirculationasidefromthepostingofthesameinatleastfour(4)conspicuouspublicplaces.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the injunction permanent.
DefendantsareenjoinedfromimplementingTaxOrdinanceNo.7988.Thebondpostedbytheplaintiffishereby
CANCELLED.7
Duringthependencyofthesaidcase,theCityMayorofManilaapprovedon22February2001TaxOrdinance
No. 8011 entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Certain Sections of Ordinance No. 7988." Said tax ordinance was
again challenged by petitioner before the DOJ through a Petition questioning the legality of the aforementioned
tax ordinance on the grounds that (1) said tax ordinance amends a tax ordinance previously declared null and
voidandwithoutlegaleffectbytheDOJand(2)saidtaxordinancewaslikewisenotpublisheduponitsapproval
inaccordancewithSection188oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991.
On5July2001,thenDOJSecretaryHernandoPerezissuedaResolutiondeclaringTaxOrdinanceNo.8011null
andvoidandlegallynotexisting.AccordingtotheDOJSecretary:
After a careful examination/evaluation of the records of this case and applying the pertinent provisions of the
LocalGovernmentCodeof1991,thisDepartmentfindstheinstantpetitionofCocaColaBottlers,Philippines,Inc.
meritorious.
Itbearsstress,attheoutset,thatthesubjectordinancewaspassedandapprovedbytherespondentsprincipally
toamendOrdinanceNo.7988whichwasearliernullifiedbythisDepartmentinitsResolutionDatedAugust17,
2000,alsoattheinstanceofthehereinpetitioner.xxx
xxxx
xxx[T]heonlylogicalconclusion,therefore,isthatOrdinanceNo.8011,subjectherein,isalsonullandvoid,it
being a mere amendatory ordinance of Ordinance No. 7988 which, as earlier stated, had been nullified by this
Department.Aninvalidorunconstitutionallaworordinancedoesnot,inlegalcontemplation,exist(ManilaMotors
Co., Inc. vs. Flores, 99 Phil. 738). Where a statute which has been amended is invalid, nothing, in effect, has
beenamended.AsheldinPeoplevs.Lim,108Phil.1091:
"Ifanorderorlawsoughttobeamendedisinvalid,thenitdoesnotlegallyexist.Therewouldbenooccasionor
needtoamenditxxx"(atp.1097)
Instead of amending Ordinance No. 7988, herein respondent should have enacted another tax measure which
strictly complies with the requirements of law, both procedural and substantive. The passage of the assailed
ordinance did not have the effect of curing the defects of Ordinance No. 7988 which, any way, does not legally
exist.
xxxx
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,TaxOrdinanceNo.8011isherebydeclaredNULLandVOIDandLEGALLY
NOTEXISTING.8
RespondentsMotionforReconsiderationoftheResolutionoftheDOJwassubsequentlydeniedinaResolution,9

dated12March2002.
TheCityofManilaappealedtheDOJResolution,dated12March2002,denyingitsMotionforReconsiderationof
the Resolution nullifying Tax Ordinance No. 8011 before the RTC of Manila, Branch 17, but the same was
dismissedforlackofjurisdictioninanOrder,dated2December2002.Accordingtothetrialcourt:
Fromwhateverangletherecourseofhereinpetitionerswasviewed,eitherfromthestandpointofSection1,Rule
43,orSection1andthelastsentenceofthesecondparagraphofSection4,Rule65ofthe1997RulesofCivil
Procedure,theconclusionwasinevitablethatpetitionersremedialmeasurefromdispositionsoftheSecretaryof
Justiceshouldhavebeenventilatedbeforethenextjudicialplane.xxx
Accordingly,byreasonoftheforegoingpremises,CivilCaseNo.02103372for"Certiorari"isDISMISSED.
Consequently,respondentsappealedtheforegoingOrder,dated2December2002,viaaPetitionforReviewon
Certiorari to the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 157490. However, said appeal was dismissed in our
Resolution,dated23June2003,thedispositiveofwhichreads:
Pursuant to Rule 45 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended governing
appealsbycertioraritotheSupremeCourt,onlypetitionswhichareaccompaniedbyorwhichcomplystrictlywith
the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court resolves to DENY the
instant petition for review on certiorari of the orders of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 17 dated
December2,2002andMarch7,2003forthelatefilingasthepetitionwasfiledbeyondthereglementaryperiod
offifteen(15)daysfixedinSec.2,Rule45inrelationtoSec.5(a),Rule56.
TheomnibusmotionofpetitionersforreconsiderationoftheresolutionofApril23,2003whichdeniedthemotion
foranextensionoftimetofileapetitionisDENIEDforlackofmerit.
Respondents Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied in a Resolution, dated 11 August 2003, in
whichtheCourtresolvedasfollows:
ActingonthemotionofpetitionersforreconsiderationoftheresolutionofJune23,2003whichdeniedthepetition
forreviewoncertiorariandconsideringthatthereisnocompellingreasontowarrantamodificationofthisCourts
resolution,theCourtresolvestoDENYreconsiderationwithFINALITY.
Meanwhile, on the basis of the enactment of Tax Ordinance No. 8011, the City of Manila filed a Motion for
ReconsiderationwiththeRTCofManila,Branch21,ofitsDecision,dated28November2001,whichthecourta
quograntedinthehereinassailedOrderdated8May2002,thefulltextofwhichreads:
ConsideringthatOrdinanceNo.7988(AmendedRevenueCodeoftheCityofManila)hasalreadybeenamended
byOrdinanceNo.8011entitled"AnOrdinanceAmendingCertainSectionsofOrdinanceNo.7988"approvedby
theCityMayorofManilaonFebruary22,2001,lettheaboveentitledcasebeasitisherebyDISMISSED.Without
pronouncementastocosts."10
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the abovequoted Order was denied by the trial court in the second
challengedOrder,dated5December2002hencetheinstantPetition.
ThecaseatbarrevolvesaroundthesolepivotalissueofwhetherornotTaxOrdinanceNo.7988isnullandvoid
andofnolegaleffect.However,respondents,intheirCommentandMemorandum,raisetheproceduralissueof
whetherornottheinstantPetitionhascompliedwiththerequirementsofthe1997RulesonCivilProcedurethus,
theCourtresolvestofirstpassuponthisissuebeforetacklingthesubstantialmattersinvolvedinthiscase.
RespondentsinsistthattheinstantPetitionraisesquestionsoffactthatareproscribedunderRule45ofthe1997
Rules of Civil Procedure which states that Petitions for Certiorari before the Supreme Court shall raise only
questionsoflaw.Wedonotagree.Thereisaquestionoffactwhendoubtorcontroversyarisesastothetruthor
falsity of the alleged facts, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion
drawntherefromiscorrectisaquestionoflaw.11AthoroughreadingofthePetitionwillrevealthatpetitionerdoes
not present an issue in which we are called to rule on the truth or falsity of any fact alleged in the case.
Furthermore,theresolutionofwhetherornotthecourtaquoerredindismissingpetitionerscaseinlightofthe
enactment of Tax Ordinance No. 8011, allegedly amending Tax Ordinance No. 7988, does not necessitate an
incursionintothefactsattendingthecase.
Contrarily, it is respondents who actually raise questions of fact before us. While accusing petitioner of raising
questionsoffact,respondents,inthesamebreath,proceededtoallegethattheRTCofManila,Branch21,inits
Decision,dated28November2001,failedtotakeintoaccounttheevidencepresentedbyrespondentsallegedly
proving that Tax Ordinance No. 7988 was published for four times in a newspaper of general circulation in
accordancewiththerequirementsoflaw.Adeterminationofwhetherornotthetrialcourterredinconcludingthat
TaxOrdinanceNo.7988wasindeedpublishedforfourtimesinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationwouldclearly

involve a calibration of the probative value of the evidence presented by respondents to prove such allegation.
Therefore,saidissueisaquestionoffactwhichthisCourt,notbeingatrieroffacts,willdeclinetopassupon.
RespondentsalsopointoutthatthePetitionwasnotproperlyverifiedandcertifiedbecauseNelsonEmpalmado,
theVicePresidentforTaxandFinancialServicesofCocaColaBottlersPhilippines,Inc.whoverifiedthesubject
PetitionwasnotdulyauthorizedtofilesaidPetition.RespondentsassertthatnowhereintheattachedSecretarys
CertificatecanitbefoundtheauthorityofNelsonEmpalmadotoinstitutetheinstantPetition.Thus,therebeinga
lackofproperverification,respondentscontendthatthePetitionmustbetreatedasamerescrapofpaper,which
hasnolegaleffectasdeclaredinSection4,Rule7ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.
AninspectionoftheSecretarysCertificateattachedtothepetitionwillshowthatNelsonEmpalmadoisnotamong
thosedesignatedasrepresentativetoprosecuteclaimsinbehalfofCocaColaBottlersPhilippines,Inc.However,
itwouldseemthattheauthorityofMr.EmpalmadotofiletheinstantPetitionemanatedfromaSpecialPowerof
Attorney signed by Ramon V. Lapez, Jr., Associate Legal Counsel/Assistant Corporate Secretary of CocaCola
BottlersPhilippines,Inc.andoneofthosenamedintheSecretarysCertificateasauthorizedtofileaPetitionin
behalf of the corporation. A careful perusal of said Secretarys Certificate will further reveal that the persons
authorized therein to represent petitioner corporation in any suit are also empowered to designate and appoint
any individual as attorneyinfact of the corporation for the prosecution of any suit. Accordingly, by virtue of the
Special Power of Attorney executed by Ramon V. Lapez, Jr. authorizing Nelson Emplamado to file a Petition
beforetheSupremeCourt,theinstantPetitionhasbeenproperlyverified,inaccordancewiththe1997Rulesof
CivilProcedure.
Having disposed of the procedural issues raised by respondents, We now come to the pivotal issue in this
petition.
ItisundisputedfromthefactsofthecasethatTaxOrdinanceNo.7988hasalreadybeendeclaredbytheDOJ
Secretary,initsOrder,dated17August2000,asnullandvoidandwithoutlegaleffectduetorespondentsfailure
tosatisfytherequirementthatsaidordinancebepublishedforthreeconsecutivedaysasrequiredbylaw.Neither
istherequibblingonthefactthatthesaidOrderoftheDOJwasneverappealedbytheCityofManila,thus,ithad
attainedfinalityafterthelapseoftheperiodtoappeal.
Furthermore,theRTCofManila,Branch21,initsDecisiondated28November2001,reiteratedthefindingsof
theDOJSecretarythatrespondentsfailedtofollowtheprocedureintheenactmentoftaxmeasuresasmandated
bySection188oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991,inthattheyfailedtopublishTaxOrdinanceNo.7988for
three consecutive days in a newspaper of local circulation. From the foregoing, it is evident that Tax Ordinance
No. 7988 is null and void as said ordinance was published only for one day in the 22 May 2000 issue of the
PhilippinePostincontraventionoftheunmistakabledirectiveoftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991.
DespitethenullityofTaxOrdinanceNo.7988,thecourtaquo,intheassailedOrder,dated8May2002,wenton
todismisspetitionerscaseontheforceoftheenactmentofTaxOrdinanceNo.8011,amendingTaxOrdinance
No.7988.Significantly,saidamendingordinancewaslikewisedeclarednullandvoidbytheDOJSecretaryina
Resolution,dated5July2001,elucidatingthat"[I]nsteadofamendingOrdinanceNo.7988,[herein]respondent
shouldhaveenactedanothertaxmeasurewhichstrictlycomplieswiththerequirementsoflaw,bothprocedural
andsubstantive.ThepassageoftheassailedordinancedidnothavetheeffectofcuringthedefectsofOrdinance
No. 7988 which, any way, does not legally exist." Said Resolution of the DOJ Secretary had, as well, attained
finalitybyvirtueofthedismissalwithfinalitybythisCourtofrespondentsPetitionforReviewonCertiorariinG.R.
No.157490assailingthedismissalbytheRTCofManila,Branch17,ofitsappealduetolackofjurisdictioninits
Order,dated11August2003.
Based on the foregoing, this Court must reverse the Order of the RTC of Manila, Branch 21, dismissing
petitionerscaseasthereisnobasisinlawforsuchdismissal.Theamendinglaw,havingbeendeclaredasnull
andvoid,inlegalcontemplation,therefore,doesnotexist.Furthermore,evenifTaxOrdinanceNo.8011wasnot
declarednullandvoid,thetrialcourtshouldnothavedismissedthecaseonthereasonthatsaidtaxordinance
hadalreadyamendedTaxOrdinanceNo.7988.AsheldbythisCourtinthecaseofPeoplev.Lim,12ifanorderor
lawsoughttobeamendedisinvalid,thenitdoesnotlegallyexist,thereshouldbenooccasionorneedtoamend
it.13
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theinstantPetitionisherebyGRANTED.TheOrdersoftheRTCofManila,
Branch21,dated8May2002and5December2002,respectively,areherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.
SOORDERED.
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice
Chairperson
CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AsscociateJustice

ROMEOJ.CALLEJO,SR.
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.
ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1CivilCaseNo.0199848,pennedbyJudgeAmorA.ReyesRollo,p.36.
2Rollo,p.37.
3Records,pp.4248.
4 Section 187. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures

MandatoryPublicHearings.Theprocedureforapprovaloflocaltaxordinancesandrevenuemeasures
shallbeinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisCode:Provided,Thatpublichearingsshallbeconducted
forthepurposepriortotheenactmentthereof:Provided,further,Thatanyquestionontheconstitutionality
orlegalityoftaxordinancesorrevenuemeasuresmayberaisedonappealwithinthirty(30)daysfromthe
effectivitythereoftotheSecretaryofJusticewhoshallrenderadecisionwithinsixty(60)daysfromthedate
ofreceiptoftheappealxxx.(Emphasisours)
5Resolutionpp.25Rollo,pp.4851.
6Rollo,p.52.
7Rollo,p.56.
8DOJResolution,pp.3,56Rollo,pp.59,6162.
9Rollo,pp.6468.
10Rollo,p.36.
11 Morales v. The Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines, G.R. No. 161172, 13 December

2004,446SCRA227,237,citingFarEastMarble(Philippines),Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.94093,
10August1993,225SCRA249,255.
12108Phil.1091(1960).
13Id.at1097.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation