Lopez vs. Mata

A notary public violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarizes a document without the signatory's personal appearance and without competent evidence of identity; a Community Tax Certificate is not competent evidence of identity, and such failure constitutes dishonesty and malpractice. Failure to submit the notarial register under Section 246 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is a ground for revocation, and a complainant's desistance does not bar disciplinary proceedings.

Complainant Conrado Abe Lopez is the adoptive son of Restituto Lopez, whose mother Victoria Lopez was the second wife of Moises Legaspino. The administrative complaint concerns notarial acts on documents affecting Lot No. 1696-H (erroneously written as Lot No. 1718) in Cebu, a property also involved in a quieting of title case, Civil Case No. T-1937. The governing standards are the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and, for the 2004 deed, the Revised Administrative Code of 1917.

Moises Legaspino married twice. During his first marriage, he had Francisco, Basilia, Amando, Mamerto, and Honorata, all surnamed Legaspino. After his first wife died, he married Victoria Lopez, who had a son, Restituto Lopez, the adoptive father of complainant Conrado Abe Lopez. When Moises and Victoria died, they left a 49,817-square-meter parcel of land to their heirs. Half of the property was adjudicated to Moises's children from his first marriage, while the other half went to Restituto. Honorata later died without a will, leaving her share to her children Basilio, Pedro, Victoriano, Crisostomo, Regulada, Juan, and Patricia, all surnamed Lucmayon. The shares of Moises's other children from his first marriage were eventually consolidated in the name of Honorata's son Pedro. The property was divided as follows: 20,637 square meters to Spouses Pedro Lucmayon and Anastacia Sacayan by virtue of sales in their favor, including the 712 square meters as Pedro's share as direct heir of Honorata Legaspino Lucmayon; 24,908 square meters to Honorata Lopez and Conrado Lopez as heirs of Restituto Lopez; and 712 square meters each for Basilio Lucmayon, Victoriano Lucmayon, Patricia Lucmayon, Crisostomo Lucmayon, Regulada Lucmayon Monteroso, and Juan Lucmayon.

On December 29, 1953, Restituto executed the "Katapusang Pamigon (Testamento) Intervivos" (Katapusang Panugon), bequeathing to Conrado the 24,908-square-meter property he inherited, identified as Lot No. 1696-H but erroneously written as Lot No. 1718. Because Conrado was then only eight years old, Restituto kept possession of the document. After Restituto died, the document remained with Conrado's mother, Honorata Abe Lopez.

In the early 2000s, Judge Rogelio Lucmayon, Presiding Judge of MTCC Branch 1, Mandaue City, and son of Pedro Lucmayon, asked Conrado to execute a special power of attorney (First SPA) in favor of his friends because he wanted to sell the property they inherited to Cebu Progress Development Company. Conrado acceded and executed the First SPA on July 12, 2004 before Atty. Arturo C. Mata. On October 11, 2004, Judge Lucmayon requested another SPA (Second SPA), this time naming himself as Attorney-in-Fact. Although Conrado admitted signing the document, he did not personally appear before the notary public to have the Second SPA notarized; Judge Lucmayon had it notarized by Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas. On October 28, 2004, Judge Lucmayon asked Conrado a third time to sign an SPA (Third SPA), which was purportedly required by the vendees before paying for the property in full. Conrado was not aware that the Third SPA contained a "Waiver of Rights, Interest, Possession, and Ownership over Lot No. 1696-H." Like the Second SPA, he did not personally appear before notary public Atty. Arturo C. Mata.

After Conrado signed all the documents requested by Judge Lucmayon, the latter asked him for the Katapusang Panugon. To his surprise, Judge Lucmayon commented that Conrado had no share in Lot No. 1696-H because the figures "1696" were only written in pen under the typewritten words "Lot No. 1718." Conrado could not have written those figures because he was only eight years old when the Katapusang Panugon was executed; he only obtained the document just before his mother died in 1982. Later, Conrado discovered a Deed of Sale dated June 28, 2004, in which he allegedly sold his share in Lot No. 1696-H to one Loreto Lecanda. The deed was notarized by Atty. Gines N. Abellana, but Conrado denied signing the document or personally appearing before Atty. Abellana to have it notarized. Per Certification dated December 6, 2011 of the Notarial Section, Office of the Clerk of Court, Cebu City, Atty. Abellana did not file his notarial report for 2004.

Meanwhile, Pedro Lucmayon filed a case against Conrado for Quieting of Title (Civil Case No. T-1937), attaching the documents notarized by respondents. By Complaint Affidavit dated September 23, 2009, Conrado charged Judge Lucmayon, Atty. Sentillas, and Atty. Mata with Falsification of Public Document and Use of Falsified Document before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Cebu. That complaint was dismissed per Amended Resolution dated September 14, 2010.

In their answers, Atty. Sentillas invoked the presumption of regularity and asserted that because Conrado admitted signing the Second SPA, it is presumed that he did so before a notary public; he also claimed the present complaint was filed to malign him after an unfavorable result from the City Prosecutor. Atty. Mata countered that Conrado voluntarily signed the waiver and allowed Judge Lucmayon to look for a notary public; he said he honestly believed Conrado was among the three persons with Judge Lucmayon when the document was presented and, out of respect for the judge, did not require them to sign again or ask questions. Atty. Abellana neither denied nor admitted the charges because the complaint he received allegedly lacked page five, but he averred that the non-submission of his 2004 Notarial Report and the absence of a copy of the Deed of Sale in the Notarial Section were immaterial; he also noted the complaint lacked verification and certification against forum shopping. The IBP-CBD found that Atty. Sentillas failed to secure competent proof of affiant's identity when he notarized the Second SPA; that Atty. Mata failed to ensure it was indeed Conrado who was with Judge Lucmayon when he notarized the Third SPA and admitted not asking for competent proof of identity out of respect for the judge; and that Atty. Abellana had been remiss in his duty to submit his 2004 Notarial Report, with the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 28, 2004, designated as Doc. No. 16, Page No. 5, Book No. 41, Series of 2004, never submitted to the Clerk of Court or the Executive Judge, casting doubt on whether Conrado executed it.

• Dishonesty, Malpractice, and Notarial Violations: Complainant charged respondents Atty. Arturo C. Mata, Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas, and Atty. Gines N. Abellana with dishonesty, malpractice, and violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, praying for their disbarment.
• Non-Appearance and Invalid Notarization: Complainant alleged that he did not personally appear before the notaries public when the Second SPA, Third SPA, and Deed of Sale dated June 28, 2004 were notarized, and that he denied signing the Deed of Sale.
• Failure to Submit Notarial Report: Complainant alleged that, per Certification dated December 6, 2011 of the Notarial Section, Office of the Clerk of Court, Cebu City, Atty. Abellana did not file his notarial report for 2004.
• Related Criminal Complaint: Complainant also charged Judge Lucmayon, Atty. Sentillas, and Atty. Mata with Falsification of Public Document and Use of Falsified Document before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Cebu, which was dismissed per Amended Resolution dated September 14, 2010.

• Presumption of Regularity (Atty. Sentillas): Atty. Sentillas invoked the presumption of regularity and asserted that since Conrado admitted signing the Second SPA, it is presumed that he did so before the presence of a notary public; he also claimed the complaint was filed to malign him after Conrado failed to obtain a favorable result from the Office of the City Prosecutor.
• No Cause of Action and Good Faith (Atty. Mata): Atty. Mata countered that Conrado had no cause of action because he voluntarily signed the Waiver of Rights, Interest, Possession, and Ownership over Lot No. 1696-H and allowed Judge Lucmayon to look for a notary public; he honestly believed Conrado was among the three persons with Judge Lucmayon when the document was presented, and out of respect for the judge, he did not require them to sign again or ask questions.
• Immaterial Omissions and Defective Complaint (Atty. Abellana): Atty. Abellana neither denied nor admitted the charges because the complaint allegedly lacked page five; he averred that the non-submission of his 2004 Notarial Report and the absence of a copy of the Deed of Sale dated June 28, 2004 in the Notarial Section were immaterial to the charges, and that the complaint did not contain verification and certification against forum shopping.

• Sanction for Violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: Whether respondents should be sanctioned for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Competent Evidence of Identity: Whether Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas and Atty. Arturo C. Mata violated Section 2(b), Rule IV and Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Second and Third SPAs without ascertaining complainant's identity and with only a Community Tax Certificate as proof of identity.
• Notarial Register Submission: Whether Atty. Gines N. Abellana violated Section 246 of the Administrative Code of 1917 for failure to submit his notarial register for the year 2004.
• Effect of Desistance: Whether complainant's Affidavit of Desistance and the amicable settlement in Civil Case No. T-1937 warrant dismissal of the administrative case.

• Sanction for Violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: Yes. The Court adopted the IBP-CBD's factual findings but modified the recommended penalty, holding respondents liable for notarial violations.
• Competent Evidence of Identity: Yes. Sentillas and Mata violated Section 2(b), Rule IV and Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; a CTC is not competent evidence of identity, and failure to ascertain identity constitutes dishonesty and malpractice.
• Notarial Register Submission: Yes. Abellana violated Section 246 of the Administrative Code of 1917 by failing to submit his notarial register for 2004; Section 249 makes such failure a ground for revocation.
• Effect of Desistance: No. Complainant's desistance does not exonerate respondents or terminate the administrative proceedings; the charge may proceed if proven by the record.

• Sanction for Violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is impressed with substantial public interest, and only qualified or authorized persons may be commissioned. A notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness, must inform himself of the facts he certifies to, and must observe the highest degree of care in complying with basic requirements. Notarization converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible without further proof of authenticity and entitling it to full faith and credit on its face. Respondents failed to live up to these duties in notarizing the Second SPA, Third SPA, and Deed of Sale dated June 28, 2004. The IBP-CBD's factual findings were adopted, but the recommended penalty was modified.
• Competent Evidence of Identity: Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice prohibits a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Section 12, Rule II defines competent evidence of identity as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary and personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument who each personally knows the individual and shows documentary identification. As to Atty. Sentillas, Conrado admitted signing the Second SPA but disclaimed personally appearing before him when it was notarized. Atty. Sentillas invoked the presumption of regularity, but the Second SPA contained a glaring defect that overcame the presumption: the affiant presented a mere Community Tax Certificate (CTC). A CTC cannot be considered competent evidence of identity because it does not bear the photograph and signature of its owner; thus Atty. Sentillas could not have properly verified whether the person before him was complainant Conrado. This was sufficient to violate the 2004 Rules. As to Atty. Mata, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truthfulness. Atty. Mata admitted he was remiss when he notarized the Third SPA with the waiver; he believed Conrado was among the three persons with Judge Lucmayon and did not ask him to sign again or ask questions out of respect for the judge. A notary public does not surrender his sworn duty to ascertain identity merely because the person before him was with a judge, and the presumption of regularity in favor of a public official does not extend to the judge's private transactions. The alleged Conrado who appeared before Atty. Mata was armed only with CTC No. 09046232, which is not competent evidence of identity. The failures of Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata to ascertain complainant's identity amounted to dishonesty and malpractice under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By affixing their notarial seal, they proclaimed that all parties personally appeared before them, were personally known to them, were the same persons who executed the instruments, were asked about voluntariness, and acknowledged the instruments voluntarily—when in truth they notarized without properly ascertaining identity and genuineness of signatures. These infractions eroded public trust and confidence in the notarial system and are grounds for revocation under Rule XI, Section 1(b)(7) and (8) of the 2004 Rules.
• Notarial Register Submission: Atty. Abellana notarized the Deed of Sale dated June 28, 2004 with only a CTC presented as competent evidence of identity; the use of a CTC was sanctioned under Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, the law applicable at the time of notarization. However, Section 246 of the same Code mandates that a notary public enter in his notarial register the matters required and forward a certified copy of each month's entries to the Clerk of Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province within the first ten days of the following month. Atty. Abellana failed to comply: per Certification dated December 6, 2011 of the Notarial Section, Office of the Clerk of Court of Cebu City, he did not file his notarial report for 2004. He treated the omission as immaterial, which bolstered that he did not respect or intend to follow his duties as a notary public. A notary public is mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties of his office, dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest; faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment are sacrosanct. Failure to send the copy of entries to the proper Clerk of Court within the first ten days of the month next following is a ground for revocation of the notarial commission under Section 249 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. In Protacio vs. Mendoza, the respondent's commission as notary public was suspended for one year for failure to send the entries in his notarial registry; this served as basis for Soriano vs. Basco. Judicial notice was also taken that in A.C. No. 3452, Atty. Abellana had already been suspended for six months from the practice of law and sternly warned for failing to live up to expectations of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness, resorting to falsification to mislead a client, and knowingly submitting forged and spurious documents during IBP investigation. A six-month suspension from the practice of law was deemed sufficient, with revocation of his notarial commission if any and a one-year bar from being commissioned as notary public.
• Effect of Desistance: Complainant executed an Affidavit of Desistance dated June 10, 2016, together with the amicable settlement between the parties in Civil Case No. T-1937, which the RTC, Branch 59, Toledo City approved on July 27, 2016. Complainant's desistance does not exonerate respondents or put an end to the administrative proceedings. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of complainant's interest or lack thereof; what matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge had been proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings, which is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance; they are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, to preserve courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court, and the complainant is in no sense a party and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.

• Notarization as a Substantial Public Interest Function — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is impressed with substantial public interest, and only qualified or authorized persons may be commissioned. A notary public must observe the highest degree of care in complying with basic requirements because notarization converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible without further proof of authenticity and entitling it to full faith and credit on its face. The Court applied this to condemn the respondents' irregularities in notarizing the Second SPA, Third SPA, and Deed of Sale.
• Competent Evidence of Identity under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Section 12, Rule II defines competent evidence of identity as (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document, or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document, or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows documentary identification. A Community Tax Certificate is not competent evidence of identity because it does not bear the photograph and signature of its owner. The Court applied this to Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata, both of whom notarized with only a CTC.
• Prohibition on Notarization Without Personal Appearance and Identification — Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. The Court found violations where Conrado did not personally appear before the notaries and the notaries failed to properly verify his identity.
• Duty to Ascertain Identity; Presumption of Regularity Does Not Excuse — A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him or her to attest to its contents and truthfulness. The presumption of regularity in favor of a public official does not extend to a judge's private transactions, and respect for a judge does not excuse a notary from ascertaining identity. The Court applied this to Atty. Mata's admission that he did not require the signatories to sign again or ask questions out of respect for Judge Lucmayon.
• Dishonesty and Malpractice from Notarial Irregularities — Failure to ascertain a signatory's identity and notarizing with only a CTC is tantamount to dishonesty and malpractice. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility require a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes, and prohibit unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. By affixing their notarial seal, notaries proclaim that all parties personally appeared before them, were personally known to them, were the same persons who executed the instruments, were asked about voluntariness, and acknowledged the instruments voluntarily. The Court found these infractions reprehensible and grounds for revocation.
• Notarial Register Submission under the Administrative Code of 1917 — Section 246 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 requires a notary public to enter in his notarial register the required matters and to forward a certified copy of each month's entries to the Clerk of Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province within the first ten days of the following month. Section 249 makes failure to send the copy of entries within that period a ground for revocation of the notarial commission. The Court applied this to Atty. Abellana, who did not file his notarial report for 2004.
• Desistance Does Not Bar Disciplinary Proceedings — A complainant's desistance does not exonerate a respondent lawyer or put an end to administrative proceedings. Suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of the complainant's interest or lack thereof; what matters is whether the charge had been proven on the basis of the facts borne out by the record. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance; they are undertaken for the public welfare and to preserve the courts from unfit practitioners. The Court applied this to reject dismissal based on the Affidavit of Desistance and amicable settlement in Civil Case No. T-1937.

• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It is impressed with substantial public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may be commissioned. It is not a purposeless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties willing to pay fees for notarization." — This passage states the foundational principle that notarization is a public-interest function, justifying the Court's strict scrutiny of the respondents' notarial acts.
• "A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him or her to attest to the contents and truthfulness of the statements therein." — This is the canonical formulation of the notary's duty of personal appearance and identity verification, applied to Atty. Mata's notarization of the Third SPA.
• "Surely, a CTC cannot be considered competent evidence of identity as it does not bear the photograph and signature of its owner." — This defines the key evidentiary rule that a Community Tax Certificate is insufficient under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, applied to both Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata.
• "Complainant's desistance, however, does not exonerate respondents or put an end to the administrative proceedings. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of complainant's interest or lack thereof. What matters is, whether on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge had been proven." — This passage establishes that disciplinary proceedings are public-welfare proceedings and cannot be terminated by private desistance or settlement.

• Heir of Unite vs. Guzman, A.C. No. 12062, July 2, 2018 — The Court relied on this case for the penalty imposed on Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata: suspension from practice for six months, revocation of notarial commission, and prohibition from being commissioned as notary public for two years for failing to require competent evidence of identity.
• Protacio vs. Mendoza, 443 Phil. 12-23 (2003) — Cited for suspending a notary public's commission for one year for failure to send the entries in his notarial registry to the Clerk of Court; the case served as basis for Soriano vs. Basco.
• Soriano vs. Basco, 507 Phil. 410-416 (2005) — Cited for the notary public's duties and the rule that failure to send a copy of the entries to the proper Clerk of Court within the first ten days of the following month is a ground for revocation of the notarial commission.
• Bautista vs. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236, 241 (2006) — Cited for the rule that a complainant's desistance does not exonerate the respondent or terminate administrative proceedings, which are prosecuted for the public welfare.
• Samonte vs. Abellana, 736 Phil. 718, 731 (2014) — Cited as the prior sanction in A.C. No. 3452, where Atty. Abellana was suspended for six months and sternly warned; the Court considered this in imposing the penalty.
• Sappayani vs. Gasmen, 768 Phil. 1-8 (2015) — Cited for the principle that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act.
• Bartolome vs. Basilio, 771 Phil. 1, 9 (2015) — Cited for the notary public's duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness.
• Lim vs. Acero, A.C. No. 11025, October 2, 2019 — Cited for the highest degree of care required of notaries and for the rule that a CTC is not competent evidence of identity.
• Villarin vs. Sabate, Jr., 382 Phil. 1-7 (2000) — Cited for the rule that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him or her.
• Atty. Dela Cruz vs. Atty. Zabala, 485 Phil. 83, 89 (2004) — Cited for the proposition that by affixing the notarial seal, the notary proclaims the five matters regarding personal appearance, identity, execution, voluntariness, and acknowledgment.
• Chua vs. Weslmont Bank, 683 Phil. 56-69 (2012) — Cited in connection with Atty. Sentillas's invocation of the presumption of regularity.

• Section 2(b), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, July 6, 2004) — Prohibits a notary public from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied to Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata.
• Section 12, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Defines "competent evidence of identity" as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary and personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument who each personally knows the individual and shows documentary identification. A CTC is not competent evidence because it lacks a photograph and signature. Applied to Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata.
• Canon 1 and Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Canon 1 requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes; Rule 1.01 prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata, whose failure to ascertain identity constituted dishonesty and malpractice.
• Section 251, Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (Act No. 2711, March 10, 1917) — Requires every contract, deed, or other document acknowledged before a notary public to have certified thereon that the parties presented their proper residence certificates or are exempt, with the number, place of issue, and date of each certificate entered by the notary. The decision notes that the use of a CTC as proof of identity was sanctioned under this provision at the time Atty. Abellana notarized the Deed of Sale.
• Section 246, Revised Administrative Code of 1917 — Requires the notary public to enter in the notarial register the required matters in chronological order and to forward a certified copy of each month's entries to the Clerk of Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province within the first ten days of the following month. Atty. Abellana violated this provision by failing to submit his notarial register for 2004.
• Section 249, Revised Administrative Code of 1917 — Provides grounds for revocation of a notary's commission, including the failure of the notary to send the copy of the entries to the proper Clerk of Court of First Instance within the first ten days of the month next following. Applied to Atty. Abellana.
• Rule XI, Section 1(b)(7) and (8), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides for revocation of commission or administrative sanctions upon a notary public who fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act or fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence. Applied to Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata. The decision also refers to Rule IX, Section 1(b), subparagraphs 7 and 8.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Reyes, Jr., and Lopez, JJ., concur.