Rubio vs. Atty. Caoibes, Jr.

A lawyer who engages in multiple acts of deceit, disrespect toward the courts, violation of notarial rules, noncompliance with MCLE requirements, use of false roll numbers, and disobedience of lawful IBP orders warrants disbarment, notwithstanding the IBP's recommendation of a lesser penalty, when the gravity of the infractions and the lawyer's prior disciplinary record demonstrate unfitness to remain in the Roll of Attorneys.

Complainant Vivian A. Rubio was the accused in several criminal cases filed by respondent Atty. Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. as private complainant before the Municipal Trial Courts of Calaca and Balayan, Batangas. Respondent, a former judge who had previously been dismissed from the judiciary for serious impropriety in Sison vs. Judge Caoibes, Jr., was commissioned as a notary public by the RTC of Lemery, Batangas. The legal framework governing the case includes the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-08-13-SC), Bar Matter No. 850 (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education), and Bar Matter No. 1132 (requirement to indicate roll numbers in pleadings).

Respondent Atty. Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. filed a complaint for Estafa against complainant Vivian A. Rubio over the amount of ₱4,500.00 before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calaca, Batangas. Before the prosecution could continue presenting its evidence, respondent moved for mediation of the matter. Complainant agreed to pay respondent ₱200,000.00 for the dismissal of all the cases he had filed against her and her mother, Luz Rubio. She paid ₱100,000.00 on April 3, 2018, as evidenced by a Deposit Receipt, and fully paid the remaining balance on April 10, 2018, per an Acknowledgment Receipt. However, respondent refused to sign the Affidavit of Desistance that complainant's counsel had drafted; instead, he prepared his own document entitled "Combined Affidavits of Admissions and Desistance," which required complainant to virtually admit her guilt of the charges against her. Complainant refused to sign it because it was not part of the settlement agreement. As a result, respondent did not move for the dismissal of the pending cases. Respondent also disparaged complainant in letters to her counsel dated May 4 and May 16, 2018. At the time she filed the disbarment complaint, complainant was facing three more criminal cases in the MTC of Calaca and MTC of Balayan, Batangas.

Thereafter, complainant began inquiring into respondent's professional conduct. She discovered that on April 17, 2018, respondent filed a "Manifestation and Urgent Omnibus Motion for Immediate Voluntary Inhibition" in Criminal Case No. 3553 before the MTC of Calaca, presided by Judge Vicente B. Montes, in which respondent used cruel and disrespectful language against the judge, threatened to file an administrative case, and walked out of the sala. Complainant also found that respondent had filed a "Manifestation (RE: Decision of Acquittal)" dated March 23, 2015 in Criminal Case No. 6594 before the RTC of Balayan, in which respondent attacked the integrity of Judge Rolando E. Silang, who had acquitted the accused. Many cases filed by respondent had been pending for years because judges opted to inhibit due to his motions for inhibition.

Complainant further discovered that respondent indicated in his pleadings the statement "MCLE Compliance presently being updated," but a Certification dated April 24, 2018 from the MCLE Office confirmed that respondent was neither compliant with nor exempt from the MCLE requirement. Respondent also used various Roll of Attorneys numbers that did not belong to him in his pleadings. His correct roll number was 30889, but he used 31889 in several pleadings and 38889 in a Compromise Agreement. Additionally, although respondent was issued a notarial commission by the RTC of Lemery, Batangas, he notarized documents in Calaca, Batangas, which was outside his notarial commission's territorial jurisdiction. A Certification dated May 16, 2018 from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Balayan confirmed that respondent was not among those commissioned as notary public within its territorial jurisdiction from 2014 to the present.

Respondent, for his part, argued in his Answer that complainant did not come to court with clean hands, citing her conviction in Criminal Case No. 7981 for Estafa—where he was the private complainant—which had become final and executory, with complainant currently under probation. He also alleged that complainant was in an immoral live-in relationship and had three children by different fathers without ever having been married. Respondent claimed he had ceased appearing as counsel after June 21, 2018 due to his MCLE non-compliance and had decided to abandon his legal practice due to his physical and economic situation. Regarding notarization, he contended that his notarial commission covered the Province of Batangas per a Certification dated August 22, 2017 from the Executive Judge of Branch 5, RTC of Lemery. Respondent did not file a position paper as required by the IBP. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment, but the IBP Board of Governors modified the recommendation to indefinite suspension, considering respondent's age. The Supreme Court, however, found the gravity of the infractions and respondent's prior disciplinary record warranted the penalty of disbarment.

• Deceptive Settlement Practices: Complainant alleged that respondent misled her into paying ₱200,000.00 by promising to have all the criminal cases he filed against her and her mother dismissed, only to renege on that promise after receiving full payment, instead demanding she admit guilt through a Combined Affidavits of Admissions and Desistance.
• Notarial Violations: Complainant asserted that respondent notarized documents in Calaca, Batangas, which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of his notarial commission issued by the RTC of Lemery, Batangas.
• Disrespectful Language Against Judges: Complainant contended that respondent used cruel, disrespectful, and offensive language against Judges Montes and Silang in his pleadings, and that many of his cases had been pending for years because judges opted to inhibit due to his motions for inhibition.
• MCLE Non-Compliance and Misrepresentation: Complainant pointed out that respondent indicated "MCLE Compliance presently being updated" in his pleadings, but the MCLE Office Certification confirmed he was neither compliant with nor exempt from the MCLE requirement.
• Use of False Roll Numbers: Complainant alleged that respondent used various Roll of Attorneys numbers that did not belong to him in his pleadings, undermining the integrity of legal practice.
• Cumulative CPR Violations: Complainant posited that the foregoing acts violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1; Rule 3.01, Canon 3; Canon 5; Rule 10.01, Canon 10; Canon 11; and Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12 of the CPR.

• Unclean Hands: Respondent argued that complainant did not come to court with clean hands, as she had been convicted in Criminal Case No. 7981 for Estafa where he was the private complainant, with the conviction having become final and executory and complainant currently under probation. He further alleged that complainant was in an immoral live-in relationship with three children by different fathers and had never been married.
• Abandonment of Practice: Respondent maintained that the last case he handled was Criminal Case No. 3553 before the MTC of Calaca, that he ceased to appear as counsel after June 21, 2018 because his MCLE requirement was not up to date, and that he could no longer afford to complete his MCLE requirement due to his physical and economic situation, thus deciding to abandon his legal practice.
• Notarial Commission Coverage: Respondent argued that he did not notarize documents outside his notarial commission's jurisdiction, contending that his commission covered the Province of Batangas per a Certification dated August 22, 2017 from the Executive Judge of the RTC of Lemery, Batangas.

• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for his actions, encompassing multiple violations of the Lawyer's Oath, the CPR, the Notarial Rules, and B.M. No. 850.
• Deceptive Settlement: Whether respondent misled complainant into paying ₱200,000.00 by promising dismissal of criminal cases against her, in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
• Notarial Jurisdiction: Whether respondent violated the Notarial Rules by notarizing documents in Calaca, Batangas, which fell outside the territorial jurisdiction of his notarial commission.
• Offensive Language: Whether respondent violated the CPR by using foul, intemperate, and insulting language against judges in his pleadings.
• MCLE Compliance: Whether respondent violated B.M. No. 850 and Canon 5 of the CPR by failing to comply with MCLE requirements and misrepresenting his compliance status.
• False Roll Numbers: Whether respondent violated B.M. No. 1132 and Canon 10 of the CPR by using incorrect roll numbers in his pleadings.
• Disobedience of IBP Order: Whether respondent violated the CPR by failing to file his position paper as required by the IBP.
• Proper Penalty: Whether disbarment, rather than the IBP's recommended indefinite suspension, was the appropriate penalty given the gravity of the infractions and respondent's prior disciplinary record.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Respondent was found guilty of violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the CPR, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and B.M. No. 850, and was disbarred from the practice of law with his name ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
• Deceptive Settlement: Yes. Respondent deceived complainant into believing he would have the criminal charges dismissed when he knew only the civil aspect could be settled, violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
• Notarial Jurisdiction: Yes. Respondent violated Section 11, Rule III of the Notarial Rules by notarizing documents in Calaca, Batangas, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Balayan, not the RTC of Lemery where he was commissioned.
• Offensive Language: Yes. Respondent violated Rules 8.01, 11.03, 11.04, and 11.05 of the CPR by making intemperate, insulting, and baseless statements against Judges Silang, Areta, and Montes in his pleadings.
• MCLE Compliance: Yes. Respondent never complied with the MCLE requirement from the first to the fifth compliance period, yet appeared before courts as counsel and misrepresented that his compliance was being updated or had been completed, violating B.M. No. 850 and Canon 5, as well as Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the CPR.
• False Roll Numbers: Yes. Respondent used roll numbers 31889 and 38889 instead of his correct number 30889 in multiple pleadings without explanation, violating B.M. No. 1132 and Rule 10.01 of the CPR.
• Disobedience of IBP Order: Yes. Respondent's failure to file his position paper as required by the IBP was inconsistent with his duties under Canons 1, 7, and 11 of the CPR.
• Proper Penalty: Disbarment. The gravity of the infractions, combined with respondent's prior disciplinary record as a judge—including a prior dismissal from service—warranted disbarment despite the IBP's recommendation of indefinite suspension and notwithstanding the Court's willingness to temper penalties for advanced age.

• Administrative Liability: The Court adopted and approved the IBP's findings of fact, which established multiple distinct violations spanning the Lawyer's Oath, the CPR, the Notarial Rules, and B.M. No. 850. The cumulative effect of these violations demonstrated respondent's unfitness to remain a member of the Bar, justifying the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
• Deceptive Settlement: Respondent did not deny receiving ₱200,000.00 from complainant. The Joint Affidavit dated May 24, 2018 executed by Judge Montes and complainant's counsel Atty. Chavez confirmed that respondent proposed the settlement, swore by his Lawyer's Oath to dismiss all cases upon full payment, and then refused to sign the affidavit of desistance, instead submitting a Combined Affidavits requiring complainant to admit guilt. The Court found that respondent deceived complainant into thinking he would dismiss the criminal charges when he knew that only the civil aspect could be settled. Even assuming respondent intended only to settle the civil aspect, he still failed to uphold his end of the bargain by not moving for dismissal despite receiving full payment. This constituted a violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
• Notarial Jurisdiction: Respondent admitted that most documents he notarized were from Calaca, Batangas, where his office was located. Under Section 11, Rule III of the Notarial Rules, a notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Pursuant to Section 18 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 and A.M. No. 94-9-305-RTC, the RTC of Lemery (Branch 5) has territorial jurisdiction over the Municipalities of Agoncillo, Lemery, and San Luis, while the RTCs of Balayan have jurisdiction over Balayan, Calaca, Calatagan, and Tuy. Since Calaca falls under the RTC of Balayan's jurisdiction, respondent's notarization of documents there violated the Notarial Rules and constituted a breach of Rule 1.01 of the CPR. The Court emphasized that a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and notaries public must strictly observe the Notarial Rules to protect public confidence in the integrity of this form of conveyance.
• Offensive Language: Respondent did not refute or defend the questionable language used in his pleadings. The Court found that respondent did not merely criticize the judges but insulted them. In the 2015 Manifestation, respondent implied Judge Silang was working for the devil and threatened to speak ill of him before the latter's late father in heaven. In the Motion for Immediate Inhibition, he accused Judge Areta of incompetence, laziness, and partiality. In the 2018 Manifestation and Motion, he claimed Judge Montes behaved like a "small dictator" and was engaged in unscrupulous practices. The Court held that while lawyers have the right and obligation to criticize courts and judges, they must do so using respectful and dignified language through legitimate channels. The unsubstantiated allegations were patently disrespectful and unacceptable, violating Rules 8.01, 11.03, 11.04, and 11.05 of the CPR. Had there been basis for respondent's complaints, he should have submitted evidence before the proper authority.
• MCLE Compliance: The Certification from the MCLE Office showed that respondent never complied with the MCLE requirement from the first compliance period (April 15, 2001 to April 14, 2004) through the fifth compliance period (April 15, 2013 to April 14, 2016). Despite this, respondent admittedly appeared before courts as counsel prior to June 21, 2018, in clear violation of B.M. No. 850 and Canon 5 of the CPR. Worse, respondent misrepresented his compliance status by stating in pleadings that his MCLE compliance was "presently being updated" and by claiming he had complied during the 13th IBP National Convention. These misleading statements also violated Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the CPR.
• False Roll Numbers: B.M. No. 1132 requires lawyers to indicate their roll numbers in all papers or pleadings submitted to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies to preserve the integrity of legal practice and enable verification of Bar membership. Respondent's correct roll number is 30889, but he used 31889 in three pleadings and 38889 in a Compromise Agreement. Only one pleading in the records contained his correct roll number. Respondent offered no explanation for the discrepancies. Given the frequency of erroneous statements and the lack of explanation, the Court found this could not be considered a mere oversight. The act of misleading the courts and the public was inconsistent with the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the CPR, which require candor, fairness, and good faith to the court.
• Disobedience of IBP Order: Respondent failed to file his position paper as required by the IBP Order dated February 4, 2021. The Court held that the lawful order of the IBP is not a mere request that respondent could disregard. His failure was inconsistent with his duties under Canons 1, 7, and 11 of the CPR.
• Proper Penalty: Disbarment is the most severe penalty, reserved for clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. The Court considered three questions: whether the transgressions justify disbarment, what circumstances in the lawyer's life might mitigate against it, and whether the profession would be better off without the erring lawyer. While the Court may temper penalties for advanced age, it found the gravity of the present infractions—combined with respondent's prior disciplinary record—warranted disbarment. Respondent had previously been fined ₱20,000.00 for inflicting fistic blows on a fellow judge (Judge Alumbres vs. Judge Caoibes, Jr.), fined ₱30,000.00 for gross ignorance of procedural law (Spouses Monterola vs. Judge Caoibes, Jr.), fined ₱40,000.00 for undue delay (Unitrust Development Bank vs. Judge Caoibes, Jr.), and dismissed from service for serious impropriety (Sison vs. Judge Caoibes, Jr.). The Court concluded that respondent had not proven himself worthy of the privilege to practice law.

• Disbarment as the Ultimate Penalty — Disbarment is the most severe penalty the Court can impose upon erring lawyers, reserved for clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. In deciding whether disbarment must be imposed, the Court considers: (1) whether the transgressions justify disbarment; (2) what circumstances in the erring lawyer's life can be drawn upon to avoid disbarment; and (3) whether the legal profession would be better off without the erring lawyer and whether others would be deterred. The proper penalty is subject to the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on surrounding facts, including the lawyer's previous disciplinary record. In this case, the Court imposed disbarment despite the IBP's recommendation of indefinite suspension, finding the gravity of the infractions and respondent's prior dismissal from judicial service dispositive.

• Territorial Jurisdiction of Notarial Commission — Under Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two years. The territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court is defined by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 18 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129. Notarization outside this territory violates the Notarial Rules and constitutes dishonest conduct under Rule 1.01 of the CPR, as it undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarial documents, which are entitled to full faith and credit upon their face.

• Limitations on Lawyer's Criticism of Judges — While lawyers have not only the right but the obligation to criticize the actions of courts and judges, such criticism must be made using respectful and dignified language through legitimate channels. The use of intemperate, insulting, or scandalous language before the courts is prohibited by Rules 8.01, 11.03, 11.04, and 11.05 of the CPR. Unsubstantiated allegations against judges are patently disrespectful and unacceptable; if there is basis for complaint, the lawyer should submit evidence before the proper authority rather than insult the judge in pleadings.

• MCLE Compliance as Mandatory — All members of the Bar who are not otherwise exempt must complete at least 36 hours of continuing legal education activities every three years under B.M. No. 850. A lawyer appearing in court must show MCLE compliance or exemption in accordance with Canon 5 of the CPR. Noncompliance, coupled with misrepresentation of compliance status, constitutes violations of B.M. No. 850 and Canons 1, 5, 7, and 10 of the CPR.

• Integrity of Roll Numbers — Under B.M. No. 1132, all lawyers must indicate their Roll of Attorneys number in all papers or pleadings submitted to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies. This requirement preserves and protects the integrity of legal practice by enabling verification of Bar membership. Using incorrect roll numbers without explanation, especially with frequency, cannot be considered a mere oversight and violates Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the CPR.

• "Indeed, the unsubstantiated allegations that respondent included in the pleadings mentioned above are patently disrespectful and unacceptable in the judicial forum. Assuming arguendo that there was basis for respondent's complaints, he should have submitted such evidence before the proper authority." — This passage articulates the Court's ratio on the limits of a lawyer's right to criticize judges: criticism must be respectful, dignified, and channeled through proper authorities, not expressed as insults in pleadings.

• "Though the Court may temper penalties for infractions committed by members of the bar in view of their advanced age, the Court finds that the gravity of the infractions committed by respondent in the present case and in previous cases warrant the penalty of disbarment." — This is the dispositive reasoning on penalty, establishing that advanced age does not automatically preclude disbarment when the gravity of present and past infractions demonstrates unfitness to practice law.

• "A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. As such, notaries public are mandated to strictly observe the basic requirements provided in the Notarial Rules in the performance of their notarial duties." — This passage states the doctrinal basis for strict compliance with notarial rules, emphasizing the public confidence dimension of notarial practice.

• "The lawful order of the IBP is not a mere request that respondent should have disregarded." — This establishes that IBP orders in disciplinary proceedings carry authoritative weight and that disobedience thereto constitutes a separate CPR violation.

• Judge Alumbres vs. Judge Caoibes, Jr., 425 Phil. 55 (2002) — Prior administrative case where respondent was fined ₱20,000.00 for inflicting fistic blows upon a fellow judge. Cited as part of respondent's disciplinary record supporting the imposition of disbarment.

• Spouses Monterola vs. Judge Caoibes, Jr., 429 Phil. 59 (2002) — Prior administrative case where respondent was fined ₱30,000.00 for gross ignorance of procedural law and unreasonable delay in issuing an order for execution. Cited as part of respondent's disciplinary record.

• Unitrust Development Bank vs. Judge Caoibes, Jr., 456 Phil. 676 (2003) — Prior administrative case where respondent was fined ₱40,000.00 for undue delay in resolving a motion to dismiss. Cited as part of respondent's disciplinary record.

• Sison vs. Judge Caoibes, Jr., 473 Phil. 251 (2004) — Prior administrative case where respondent was dismissed from service as a judge for serious impropriety unbecoming a judge, after he cited a complainant in contempt for failure to appear when the complainant had issued a traffic violation receipt to respondent's son. Cited as the most serious prior infraction supporting disbarment.

• De Chavez-Blanco vs. Atty. Lumasag, Jr., 603 Phil. 59, 67 (2009) — Cited for the principle that disbarment is reserved for clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the Bar.

• Almazan, Sr. vs. Atty. Suerte-Felipe, 743 Phil. 131 (2014) — Cited in support of the ruling that notarizing documents outside territorial jurisdiction violates Rule 1.01 of the CPR.

• Intestate Estate of Jose Uy vs. Atty. Maghari, 768 Phil. 10, 24-25 (2015) — Cited for the principle that indicating one's roll number enables parties to verify Bar membership and preserves the integrity of legal practice, supporting the finding that respondent's use of false roll numbers constituted a violation.

• Lawyer's Oath — Applied to find that respondent's deception of complainant regarding the settlement of criminal cases, his misrepresentation of MCLE compliance, and his use of false roll numbers all constituted breaches of the oath to conduct himself as a lawyer according to law and the best of his knowledge and ability.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, CPR — "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Applied to respondent's deceptive settlement practices, notarization outside territorial jurisdiction, and MCLE misrepresentation.

• Rule 8.01, Canon 8, CPR — "A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper." Applied to respondent's intemperate statements in pleadings against opposing counsel and parties.

• Rule 11.03, Canon 11, CPR — "A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts." Applied to respondent's insulting language against Judges Silang, Areta, and Montes.

• Rule 11.04, Canon 11, CPR — "A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case." Applied to respondent's unsubstantiated allegations of judicial bias and incompetence.

• Rule 11.05, Canon 11, CPR — "A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only." Applied to respondent's failure to channel complaints through proper administrative channels.

• Canon 5, CPR — "A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs..." Applied to respondent's total noncompliance with MCLE requirements from the first through the fifth compliance periods.

• Rule 10.01, Canon 10, CPR — "A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice." Applied to respondent's use of incorrect roll numbers and misrepresentation of MCLE compliance.

• Canon 7, CPR — "A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar." Applied to respondent's MCLE misrepresentation, false roll numbers, and failure to file his IBP position paper.

• Canon 10, CPR — "A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court." Applied to respondent's misleading statements regarding MCLE compliance and roll numbers.

• Section 11, Rule III, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-08-13-SC) — Provides that a notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Applied to find that respondent violated the Notarial Rules by notarizing documents in Calaca, Batangas, which falls under the RTC of Balayan's jurisdiction, not the RTC of Lemery where he was commissioned.

• Section 18, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) — Authorizes the Supreme Court to define the territory over which a branch of the RTC shall exercise its authority. Served as the statutory basis for A.M. No. 94-9-305-RTC defining RTC territorial jurisdictions in Batangas.

• A.M. No. 94-9-305-RTC (October 11, 1994) — Re-defined the territorial jurisdiction of RTC branches in the Province of Batangas, establishing that the RTC of Lemery (Branch 5) covers Agoncillo, Lemery, and San Luis, while the RTCs of Balayan cover Balayan, Calaca, Calatagan, and Tuy. Applied to determine that Calaca was outside respondent's notarial jurisdiction.

• Bar Matter No. 850 (October 2, 2001) — Requires all members of the Bar, unless exempt, to complete at least 36 hours of continuing legal education activities every three years. Applied to find respondent in violation for never having complied from the first through the fifth compliance periods.

• Bar Matter No. 1132 (April 1, 2003) — Requires all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in all papers or pleadings submitted to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies. Applied to find respondent in violation for using roll numbers 31889 and 38889 instead of his correct number 30889.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concurred. Dimaampao, J., was on official leave. Marquez, J., was on official business.