Alliance of Non-Life Insurance Workers of the Philippines vs. Mendoza

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy to challenge administrative regulations issued pursuant to quasi-legislative powers, without need of exhausting administrative remedies; however, the case becomes moot when a supervening regulation impliedly repeals the challenged issuance through irreconcilable inconsistency, and deliberate forum shopping warrants summary dismissal with prejudice and a show-cause order for direct contempt.

Petitioners Alliance of Non-Life Insurance Workers of the Philippines (Alliance), Bukluran ng Manggagawa na Umaasa sa Industriya ng Seguro Inc. (BMIS), and Movement for the Upliftment of Non-Life Insurance, Inc. (MUNLI) are associations of non-life insurance managers, agents, underwriters, brokers, and workers. The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), through its line agency the Land Transportation Office (LTO), regulates motor vehicle registration under Executive Order No. 125, as amended, which delegates quasi-legislative rule-making power to the DOTC. Stradcom Corporation operates the LTO Information Technology (IT) System under a Build-Own-Operate Agreement dated March 26, 1998. The Insurance Commission, under the Insurance Code, regulates the insurance industry. The DOTC's powers include establishing and prescribing rules and regulations for the inspection and registration of motor vehicles.

On July 5, 2007, the DOTC issued Department Order No. 2007-28, entitled "Rules and Regulations on the Integration of the Issuance and Payment of Compulsory Third Party Liability Insurance with the Land Transportation Office." The department order sought to eliminate the proliferation of fake and fraudulent CTPL insurance involved in the registration of motor vehicles. It was published on July 6, 2007, and a copy was filed before the University of the Philippines Law Center. Under DO No. 2007-28, CTPL insurance was automatically issued upon the registration of a motor vehicle or its renewal at the LTO, with the issuance and payment integrated into the LTO IT System created and operated by Stradcom Corporation. The LTO cashier would collect the insurance premium together with registration fees, and proof of insurance coverage would be indicated in the LTO Official Receipt of Registration. Stradcom, as the proponent for the LTO IT Project, was tasked with developing, implementing, operating, and maintaining the online and real-time interconnection with the LTO's Motor Vehicle Registration System and Revenue Collection System, in exchange for an interconnectivity fee for each CTPL insurance issued.

Petitioners Alliance, BMIS, and MUNLI, representing non-life insurance managers, agents, underwriters, brokers, and workers, opposed the department order. They had previously been involved in at least five other cases challenging DO No. 2007-28 before various courts. On July 23, 2007, Alliance and BMIS filed CA-G.R. SP No. 99791 before the Court of Appeals. Four days later, on July 27, 2007, the Philippine Insurers and Reinsurers Association Incorporated (PIRA) filed a petition before the RTC of Makati City, docketed as SCA Case No. 07-673, against the same respondents and seeking the same relief. An injunction was issued by the Makati RTC against the implementation of DO No. 2007-28. Thereafter, Alliance and BMIS withdrew CA-G.R. SP No. 99791, expressly citing the pendency of the PIRA case and the commonality of their interests, as reflected in Board Resolution No. 2007-02.

Separately, MUNLI filed CA-G.R. SP No. 99992 on August 1, 2007, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on August 13, 2007 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. MUNLI attempted to withdraw the petition one day after its dismissal, also admitting the commonality of its interests with PIRA in SCA Case No. 673. On June 24, 2008, the Makati RTC dissolved the injunction and dismissed SCA Case No. 07-673 for being improperly filed under Rule 65. On July 7, 2008, petitioners filed a new Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 104211, which was an almost verbatim reproduction of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 99992. The Court of Appeals granted a writ of preliminary injunction on October 24, 2008, but eventually dismissed the petition on May 24, 2012, finding forum shopping, prematurity, and lack of cause of action. The Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration on March 1, 2013, prompting petitioners to file the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court on April 25, 2013.

During the pendency of the present Petition, the DOTr issued Department Order No. 020-18 on August 24, 2018, entitled "Revised Guidelines on Mandatory Insurance Policies for Motor Vehicles and Personal Passenger Accident Insurance for Public Utility Vehicles." The Revised Guidelines were issued to "revamp the existing guidelines" and placed the determination of qualified insurance providers under the sole and exclusive authority of the Insurance Commission. Under DO No. 020-18, applicants for motor vehicle registration were responsible for procuring CTPL insurance from qualified insurers listed by the Insurance Commission, with premiums paid directly at the offices or authorized collection sites of the qualified insurers—not integrated with LTO registration. The LTO's role was reduced to verifying that the insurance was secured from a qualified insurer. DO No. 020-18 also prohibited insurers and government personnel from maintaining offices or engaging in insurance transactions within LTO and LTFRB premises, and contained a general repealing clause superseding all inconsistent prior issuances.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion and that its judgment was based on a misapprehension of facts, pointing to the erroneous caption of the Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration, which named different respondents.
• No Forum Shopping: Petitioners maintained that there was no forum shopping because there were no cases that would operate as litis pendentia to the instant petition, since CA-G.R. SP No. 99791 was withdrawn, and SCA Case No. 07-673 and CA-G.R. SP No. 99992 were dismissed. They contended that they should not be faulted for re-filing a replica of a petition which they had previously withdrawn and dismissed at their instance.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Inapplicable: Petitioners alleged that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply to actions assailing the exercise of quasi-legislative powers, since the DOTC is the President's alter ego acting directly on the President's behalf. They further argued that the issues raised were purely questions of law and matters of public interest.
• Ultra Vires Act: Petitioners argued that the enactment of DO No. 2007-28 was ultra vires because the DOTC does not have the power to regulate the insurance business under Section 3 of the Administrative Code.
• Amendment of Insurance Code: Petitioners contended that DO No. 2007-28 amends Sections 49-51 of the Insurance Code as to the form of insurance contracts, and Sections 186 and 387, by allowing DOTC or LTO to transact the business of insurance as agents without the required certification from the Insurance Commissioner, and removes the motorist's freedom to choose CTPL insurance under Sections 376-377.
• Unconstitutional Take-Over of Private Business: Petitioners argued that DO No. 2007-28 is a form of an invalid take-over of private businesses in violation of Article 12, Section 17 of the Constitution, and that the designation of GSIS as the sole CTPL provider was an invasion of private businesses done without due process and consultation with affected parties.
• Violation of Constitutional Provisions: Petitioners alleged that DO No. 2007-28, having a great adverse impact on the insurance business, was violative of Article 2, Sections 9 and 18 of the Constitution.
• Violation of Procurement Laws: Petitioners argued that DOTC and LTO directly contracted with respondent Stradcom without public bidding in violation of procurement laws.

• Forum Shopping: Respondent Stradcom alleged that the Petition should be dismissed for willful and deliberate forum shopping, and that petitioners should be sanctioned and cited in direct contempt for filing multiple cases before the lower courts.
• Wrong Remedy: Respondents argued that certiorari and prohibition are not the proper remedies to assail DO No. 2007-28, which was issued pursuant to DOTC's quasi-legislative powers, and that the petition was filed in violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
• No Actual Case or Controversy: Respondent Stradcom alleged that there was no actual case or controversy ripe for judicial adjudication because DO No. 2007-28 was not self-executing, and the guidelines for its implementation had yet to be issued by the DOTC.
• Validity of DO No. 2007-28: Respondent Stradcom defended DO No. 2007-28 as constitutional and a valid exercise of police power enacted to remove spurious CTPL insurance, asserting that the DOTC was clothed with rule- and policy-making powers under Sections 2, 3, and 5 of the Administrative Code.
• No Violation of Procurement Laws: Respondent Stradcom argued that its designation was brought about by the Build-Own-Operate Agreement with DOTC/LTO, which bears the approval of the President under Republic Act No. 6957, and that Section 4.1 of the Agreement provided Stradcom the exclusive right to provide services to DOTC and LTO during the concession period.
• No Monopoly: Respondent Stradcom contended that there was no basis for the allegation of monopoly, since DO No. 2007-28 did not provide that GSIS would solely provide CTPL insurance, citing two other models including PIRA and Road Accident Managed Services, Inc. (RAMSI).
• Res Judicata: Respondents, through the OSG, alleged that the Petition was barred by the prior resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 99992, which was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and attained finality because no appeal was taken.
• Petitioners Not Real Parties in Interest: Respondents argued that petitioners were not the real parties in interest, since it is the insurance company owners who have legal standing to file the case, and that the petition was premature because DOTC and LTO had yet to implement the guidelines of DO No. 2007-28.
• Authority to Enact DO No. 2007-28: Respondents maintained that the DOTC had the authority to enact DO No. 2007-28 under Section 5 of the Administrative Code.
• GSIS Mandate: Intervenor GSIS alleged that the project was pursuant to its mandate to grow the funds entrusted to it, and that the Petition was filed out of time since DO No. 2007-28 took effect in July 2007 but the Petition was filed only a year later, violating Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

• Propriety of Remedy: Whether a petition for certiorari and prohibition is the correct remedy to assail an administrative regulation issued pursuant to quasi-legislative powers.
• Legal Standing: Whether petitioners have legal standing to bring the Petition on behalf of their members.
• Mootness: Whether the enactment of DOTr Department Order No. 020-18 mooted the Petition.
• Forum Shopping: Whether petitioners are guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping.

• Propriety of Remedy: Yes. Certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to challenge administrative regulations issued pursuant to quasi-legislative powers, and the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies finds no application when the questioned act was done in the exercise of quasi-legislative functions.
• Legal Standing: No. Petitioners failed to establish their legal standing as associations suing on behalf of their members, having presented no proof that their members authorized them to file the case or that their members were actually engaged in providing CTPL insurance and would be directly injured.
• Mootness: Yes. The supervening enactment of DOTr Department Order No. 020-18 on August 24, 2018 impliedly repealed DOTC Department Order No. 2007-28 through irreconcilable inconsistency, rendering the Petition moot and academic.
• Forum Shopping: Yes. Petitioners were guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping, having filed at least four petitions across multiple fora based on the same cause of action and seeking the same reliefs, and having expressly admitted the commonality of their interests with PIRA in SCA Case No. 07-673.

• Propriety of Remedy: Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, read in conjunction with Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, provides the expanded scope of judicial review, which includes the duty to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. The distinction between quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial acts determines when judicial remedies may be availed of: rules issued in the exercise of quasi-legislative power may be taken cognizance of by courts on the first instance as part of their judicial power, whereas quasi-judicial acts may require prior administrative exhaustion. DO No. 2007-28 was issued pursuant to DOTC's delegated legislative power under Section 5 of Executive Order No. 125, as amended, which empowers the DOTC to establish and prescribe rules and regulations for the inspection and registration of motor vehicles. Its issuance was thus an exercise of quasi-legislative powers, and the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply. Petitioners correctly availed of certiorari and prohibition to challenge the department order.

• Legal Standing: For an association to have legal standing to sue on behalf of its members, it must establish the identity of its members, present proof of its authority to bring the suit for and on behalf of its members, and show that its members would be directly injured by the challenged governmental act. While petitioners presented their respective Certificates of Incorporation, there was no showing that the associations were authorized by their members to represent them in the protection of their insurance business. Petitioners generally averred that their membership was composed of non-life insurance agents and underwriters, but failed to present proof that their members were actually engaged in providing CTPL insurance and would be directly injured by DO No. 2007-28. The Secretary's Certificates submitted by BMIS and MUNLI showed only the authority of their respective chairpersons to file the case for and on behalf of the association—not that the association members authorized the associations to file the petition on their behalf. As for Alliance's Secretary's Certificate, an irregularity was noted: similarly worded certificates were purportedly issued on the same day referring to the same meeting but pertaining to different persons authorized to file a case. Petitioners also failed to establish standing as citizens and taxpayers, since there was no illegal disbursement of public funds and the invocation of taxpayer standing appeared to be an afterthought. Moreover, there was no showing why the individual members could not file the case themselves, nor that it was more efficient for the associations to bring the case. Finally, there was no transcendental right involved, since the constitutional issues advanced were not essential to the resolution of the case.

• Mootness: A case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy because of supervening events so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. The supervening enactment of DOTr Department Order No. 020-18 on August 24, 2018 mooted the Petition because it impliedly repealed DO No. 2007-28 through irreconcilable inconsistency. Implied repeals are not favored, as it is presumed that a law-making body considers all existing laws and could not have made conflicting rules; however, implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when two statutes cover the same subject matter and are so clearly inconsistent and incompatible that both cannot be given effect. Under DO No. 2007-28, CTPL insurance was automatically issued upon motor vehicle registration, with the LTO collecting premiums, taxes, and registration fees through the LTO IT System facilitated by Stradcom. Under DO No. 020-18, applicants were responsible for procuring CTPL insurance directly from qualified insurers listed by the Insurance Commission, with premiums paid at the offices or authorized collection sites of the qualified insurers. The LTO's role was reduced to verifying that the insurance was secured from a qualified insurer. The intention to repeal was evident in the preambulatory clause of DO No. 020-18, which stated that the DOTr "deems it best to revamp the existing guidelines," and in Section 9, which superseded all inconsistent prior issuances. The two department orders could not be harmonized, as the issuance and payment of CTPL insurance were no longer integrated with the LTO IT System under the supervening regulation. None of the recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping exists when a party files multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. The test is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another—requiring identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, and identity of the two cases such that judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. Absolute identity of parties is not required; shared identity of interest is sufficient. A review of the timeline showed that Alliance and BMIS filed CA-G.R. SP No. 99791 on July 23, 2007, then withdrew it after PIRA obtained an injunction from the Makati RTC in SCA Case No. 07-673, expressly admitting in Board Resolution No. 2007-02 the commonality of their interests with PIRA. MUNLI filed CA-G.R. SP No. 99992, which was dismissed on August 13, 2007, and also admitted the commonality of its interests with PIRA. After the Makati RTC lifted the injunction and dismissed SCA Case No. 07-673, petitioners filed CA-G.R. SP No. 104211 on July 7, 2008, which was an almost verbatim reproduction of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 99992. All petitioners admitted the commonality of their interests and similarity of issues in their respective petitions with SCA Case No. 07-673. The judgments in SCA Case No. 07-673 and CA-G.R. SP No. 99992 operated as either litis pendentia or res judicata. The error in the caption of the Court of Appeals' Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration—incorrectly naming different respondents—was not equivalent to misapprehension of facts, as the body of the decision pertained to the correct case; the confusion was brought about by the multiple petitions filed by petitioners. Willful and deliberate forum shopping warranted summary dismissal with prejudice and constituted direct contempt of court.

• Implied Repeal by Irreconcilable Inconsistency — Implied repeals are not favored, as it is presumed that a law-making body considers all existing laws and could not have made conflicting rules. Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when: (1) the two statutes cover the same subject matter; (2) they are so clearly inconsistent and incompatible with each other that they cannot be reconciled or harmonized; and (3) both cannot be given effect, that is, one law cannot be enforced without nullifying the other. The intention to repeal must be clear and manifest. In this case, DO No. 020-18 impliedly repealed DO No. 2007-28 because the two issuances governed the same subject matter—CTPL insurance integration with motor vehicle registration—but were irreconcilable: under DO No. 2007-28, CTPL insurance was automatically issued and paid for during LTO registration through the LTO IT System, while under DO No. 020-18, applicants procured CTPL insurance directly from qualified insurers listed by the Insurance Commission, with the LTO's role reduced to verification.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — Exception for Quasi-Legislative Acts — The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies finds no application when the questioned act was done in the exercise of quasi-legislative powers. A party need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to court when questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency in the exercise of its rule-making or quasi-legislative power. The doctrine applies only where the act of the administrative agency was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function. In this case, DO No. 2007-28 was issued pursuant to DOTC's quasi-legislative powers under Section 5 of Executive Order No. 125, as amended, so exhaustion was not required.

• Legal Standing of Associations — An association has legal standing to sue on behalf of its members when: (1) it establishes the identity of its members; (2) it presents proof of its authority to bring the suit for and on behalf of its members; and (3) its members would be directly injured by the challenged governmental act. Additionally, there must be an actual controversy, a clear and convincing demonstration of special reasons why the truly injured parties may not be able to sue, a showing that representation by the association is more efficient, and a showing of the transcendent nature of the right involved. In this case, petitioners failed to establish legal standing because they did not prove that their members authorized them to file the case, that their members were actually engaged in providing CTPL insurance, or that their members would be directly injured.

• Forum Shopping — Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. The test is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another, requiring: (a) identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interests; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (c) identity of the two cases such that judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. Absolute identity of parties is not required; shared identity of interest is sufficient. Willful and deliberate forum shopping is ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and constitutes direct contempt of court, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions against the lawyer.

• Moot and Academic Cases — A case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy because of supervening events so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over moot cases. Recognized exceptions exist when: (1) there was a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the case involved a situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public interest; (3) the issues raised required the formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar, and the public; and (4) the case was capable of repetition yet evading review. None of these exceptions applied in this case.

• "An implied repeal will only be sustained upon a showing of a law-making body's manifest intention that the later regulation supersedes an earlier one. Necessarily, the enactment of the superseding regulation which repeals an earlier regulation subject of a court action moots the case." — This is the opening statement of the decision, articulating the ratio decidendi that ties implied repeal doctrine to the mootness of judicial proceedings.

• "It is then settled that courts have the jurisdiction to resolve actual cases or controversies involving administrative actions done in the exercise of their quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions." — This passage establishes that judicial review under the 1987 Constitution's expanded jurisdiction extends to quasi-legislative acts, not merely quasi-judicial ones, and that certiorari is a proper remedy for challenging administrative regulations.

• "In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency, a party need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to court. This principle applies only where the act of the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power." — This is the canonical formulation of the exception to the exhaustion doctrine for quasi-legislative acts, frequently cited in administrative law jurisprudence.

• "Ultimately, what is truly important to consider in determining whether forum-shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties litigant by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issue." — This passage articulates the substantive test for forum shopping, emphasizing the vexation of courts and the risk of conflicting decisions as the core concern of the doctrine.

• Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines (PBOAP) vs. DOLE, G.R. No. 202275, July 17, 2018 — Controlling precedent extensively relied upon for the distinction between quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial acts, the requirements of judicial review for each, and the requirements of legal standing for associations suing on behalf of their members. The Court applied its framework for determining whether an association has legal standing, requiring proof of member identity, authorization, and direct injury.

• Araullo vs. Aquino III — Followed for the proposition that petitions for certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to correct acts tainted with grave abuse of discretion, and that the expanded scope of judicial review under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution authorizes the issuance of the writ to correct grave abuse of discretion by any branch or instrumentality of the government, even if it does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions.

• Smart Communications, Inc. vs. NTC, 456 Phil. 145 (2003) — Followed for the doctrine that exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the questioned act was done in the exercise of quasi-legislative powers.

• City of Taguig vs. City of Makati, 787 Phil. 367 (2016) — Followed for the modes of commission of forum shopping and the requisites of litis pendentia and res judicata as tests for determining forum shopping.

• Grace Park International vs. Eastwest Banking, 791 Phil. 570 (2016) — Followed for the clarification that absolute identity of parties is not required for forum shopping, and that shared identity of interest is sufficient.

• Mecano vs. Commission on Audit, 209-A Phil. 272 (1992) — Followed for the distinction between express and general repealing clauses, and the doctrine of implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency.

• David vs. Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705 (2006) — Followed for the summary of requirements where taxpayers and concerned citizens have legal standing to sue.

• Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 333 Phil. 465 (1996) — Followed for the proposition that willful and deliberate forum shopping constitutes grave abuse of the judicial process warranting summary dismissal of both actions.

• Oasis Park Hotel vs. Navahina, 800 Phil. 244 (2016) — Followed for the rule that the inclusion of names of parties in the caption of a pleading is only a formal requirement, and that the allegations in the body are controlling.

• Article VIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution — Defines judicial power as including the duty of courts to settle actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights, and to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. The Court relied on this provision to establish that certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to challenge quasi-legislative acts.

• Rule 65, Section 1, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for certiorari, providing that a person aggrieved by a tribunal, board, or officer acting without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may file a verified petition for certiorari when there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court applied this provision to confirm that certiorari was the proper remedy.

• Rule 7, Section 5, Rules of Court — Requires the certification against forum shopping and provides that willful and deliberate forum shopping shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. The Court applied this provision in finding petitioners guilty of forum shopping.

• Section 5, Executive Order No. 125, as amended — Enumerates the powers and functions of the DOTC, including the power to establish and prescribe rules and regulations for the inspection and registration of motor vehicles. The Court relied on this provision to confirm that DO No. 2007-28 was issued pursuant to DOTC's quasi-legislative powers.

• Article 12, Section 17, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the State may, in the public interest and as prescribed by law, take over or direct the operations of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest. Petitioners invoked this provision to argue that DO No. 2007-28 constituted an invalid take-over of private insurance businesses, but the Court declined to rule on this constitutional issue as it was not essential to the resolution of the case.

• Article 2, Sections 9 and 18, 1987 Constitution — Petitioners invoked these provisions to argue that DO No. 2007-28 had a great adverse impact on the insurance business, but the Court declined to examine these constitutional issues as they were not the lis mota of the case.

Gesmundo, Carandang, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concurred.