422 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Estinozovs.CourtofAppeals
*
G.R.No.150276.February12,2008.

CECILIA B. ESTINOZO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,

FORMER SIXTEENTH DIVISION, and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,respondents.

Appeals Certiorari Pleadings and Practice When appeal by

certiorari is availed by a party, he or she effectively forecloses his or her
right to resort to a special civil action for certioraria petition for review
oncertiorariunderRule45andapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65are
mutually exclusive remedies Certiorari cannot coexist with an appeal or
anyotheradequateremedy.Immediatelyapparentisthatthepetitionisthe
wrongremedytoquestiontheappellatecourtsissuances.Section1ofRule
45 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that a party desiring to appeal
bycertiorarifromajudgmentorfinalorderorresolutionoftheCAmayfile
a verified petition for review on certiorari. Considering that, in this case,
appeal by certiorari was available to petitioner, she effectively foreclosed
her right to resort to a special civil action for certiorari, a limited form of
review and a remedy of last recourse, which lies only where there is no
appealorplain,speedyandadequateremedyintheordinarycourseoflaw.A
petitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45andapetitionforcertiorari
under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive remedies. Certiorari cannot coexist
withanappealoranyotheradequateremedy.Thenatureofthequestionsof
lawintendedtoberaisedonappealisofnoconsequence.Itmaywellbethat
thosequestionsoflawwilltreatexclusivelyofwhetherornotthejudgment
or final order was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion. This is immaterial. The remedy is appeal, not
certiorariasaspecialcivilaction.

SameSameSameTheruleisthatthe15dayreglementaryperiodfor
appealing or filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial cannot be
extended, except in cases before the Supreme Court, as one of last resort,
which may, in its sound discretion grant the extension requested.Even
granting arguendo that the instant certiorari petition is an appropriate
remedy,stillthisCourtcannotgrantthewritprayedforbecausewefindno
graveabuseofdiscretioncommittedbytheCAinthechallengedissuances.
Therule,asitstandsnow
_______________

*THIRDDIVISION.

423

VOL.544,FEBRUARY12,2008 423

Estinozovs.CourtofAppeals

without exception, is that the 15day reglementary period for appealing or

filingamotionforreconsiderationornewtrialcannotbeextended,exceptin
cases before this Court, as one of last resort, which may, in its sound
discretion grant the extension requested. This rule also applies even if the
motion is filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended.
Thus,theappellatecourtcorrectlydeniedpetitionersMotionforExtension
ofTimetoFileaMotionforReconsideration.

Same Same Certiorari is not a procedural device to deprive the

winning party of the fruits of the judgment in his or her favor When a
decision becomes final and executory, the court loses jurisdiction over the
caseandnotevenanappellatecourtwillhavethepowertoreviewthesaid
judgment.Itiswelltopointoutthatwithpetitionerserroneousfilingofa
motion for extension of time and with her nonfiling of a motion for
reconsideration or a petition for review from the CAs decision, the
challenged decision has already attained finality and may no longer be
reviewed by this Court. The instant Rule 65 petition cannot even substitute
for the lost appealcertiorari is not a procedural device to deprive the
winning party of the fruits of the judgment in his or her favor. When a
decision becomes final and executory, the court loses jurisdiction over the
case and not even an appellate court will have the power to review the said
judgment. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation and this will set to
naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the
rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable
controversieswithfinality.

SameSamePartylitigantsandtheirlawyersareremindedtorefrain
from filing frivolous petitions for certiorari The second and third
paragraphs of Section 8 of Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 07712SC,
nowprovidethatthecourtmaydismissthepetitionforcertiorariifitfinds
thesamepatentlywithoutmeritorprosecutedmanifestlyfordelay,orifthe
questionsraisedthereinaretoounsubstantialtorequireconsideration.We
remind partylitigants and their lawyers to refrain from filing frivolous
petitionsforcertiorari.The2ndand3rdparagraphsofSection8ofRule65,
asamendedbyA.M.No.07712SC,nowprovidethat:xxxHowever,the
courtmaydismissthepetitionifitfindsthesamepatentlywithoutmeritor
prosecuted manifestly for delay, or if the questions raised therein are too
unsubstantialtorequireconsideration.Insuchevent,thecourtmayawardin
favoroftherespondenttreblecostssolidarilyagainst

424

424 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Estinozovs.CourtofAppeals

thepetitionerandcounsel,inadditiontosubjectingcounseltoadministrative
sanctionsunderRules139and139BoftheRulesofCourt.TheCourtmay
imposemotupropio,basedonresipsaloquitor,otherdisciplinarysanctions
or measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious
petitionsforcertiorari.

SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheLawFirmofRecia,Recia&Aragonesforpetitioner.
TheSolicitorGeneralforthePeople.

NACHURA,J.:

AssailedbeforetheCourtviaapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65
are the following issuances
1
of the Court of Appeals (CA): (1) the
April 30, 2001 Decision in2 CAG.R. CR No. 18387 affirming the
November9,1994Decision oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch24
ofMaasin,SouthernLeyteinCriminalCaseNos.1261,1262,1263,3
1264, 1265, 1267 and 1269 (2) the June 28, 2001 Resolution
denyingpetitionersMotionforExtensionofTimetoFileaMotion
4 5
for Reconsideration and (3) the August 17, 62001 Resolution
denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the June 28,
2001Resolution.
Recordsrevealthefollowingantecedentfacts:

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice (later, Presiding Justice) Romeo A. Brawner

(retired)withAssociateJusticesRemediosSalazarFernandoandRebeccaDeGuia
Salvador,concurringCARollo,pp.200214.
2DecidedbyJudgeLeandroT.Loyao,Jr.id.,atpp.433.

3CARollo,pp.220221.

4Id.,atpp.216217.

5Id.,atpp.249250.

6Id.,atpp.222224.

425
 VOL.544,FEBRUARY12,2008 425
Estinozovs.CourtofAppeals

SometimeinFebruaryandMarch1986,petitioner,whileinSogod,
Southern Leyte, represented to private complainants Gaudencio
Ang, Rogelio Ceniza, Nilo Cabardo, Salvacion Nueve, Virgilio
Maunes,ApolinariaOlayvar,andMarizaFlorendothatshewasone
7
of the owners of Golden Overseas Employment
8
and that she was
recruitingworkerstobesentabroad. Shethenaskedfromthesaid
complainantsthepaymentofplacementandprocessingfeestotaling
9
P15,000.00. Viewing this as a golden opportunity for the
amelioration of their lives, the private complainants paid the fees,
went with petitioner to Manila, relying
10
on her promise that they
would be deployed by July 1986. On the promised date of their
departure, however, private complainants never left the country.
Theyweretheninformedbypetitionerthattherewerenoavailable
planeticketsandthattheywouldleavebySeptemberofthatyear.
Came November 1986 and still they were not deployed. This
promptedprivatecomplainantstosuspectthatsomethingwasamiss,
and they demanded the return of their money. Petitioner assured 11
them refund of the fees and even executed promissory notes to
several of the 12complainants but, as before, her assurances were
merepretenses.
In the early months of 1987, complainants then initiated formal
chargesforestafaagainstpetitioner.Afterpreliminaryinvestigation,
theProvincialProsecutorfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC) 13
of Maasin, Southern Leyte seven (7) separate Informations for
Estafa,definedandpenalized

_______________

7TSN,May6,1993,p.12.

8TSN,May4,1993,p.5.

9Id.,atp.6.

10Id.,atpp.810.

11ExhibitsGandH.

12TSN,May4,1993,pp.1319.

13Records(Crim.CaseNo.1261),pp.12Records(Crim.CaseNo.1262),pp.12

Records (Crim. Case No. 1263), pp. 12 Records (Crim. Case No. 1264), pp. 12
Records(Crim.CaseNo.1265),pp.1

426

426 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Estinozovs.CourtofAppeals
under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). On
request of petitioner,
14
the cases were consolidated and jointly heard
bythetrialcourt.

_______________

2Records(Crim.CaseNo.1267),pp.12Records(Crim.CaseNo.1269),pp.12.
Except for the date of the commission of the crime, the name of the private
complainantandtheamountinvolved,thesevenseparateInformationsaresimilarly
wordedtoreadasfollows:
xxx
That on or about the 6th day of February, 1986 [in Crim. Cases Nos. 1261 and
1265 24th day of February, 1986 in Crim. Cases Nos. 1262 and 1263 3rd day of
March,1986inCrim.CasesNos.1264,1267and1269],intheMunicipalityofSogod,
provinceofSouthernLeyte,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable
Court, the abovenamed accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent
representationswhichshemadetoGaudencioAng[inCrim.CaseNo.1261Rogelio
CenizainCrim.CaseNo.1262NiloCabardoinCrim.CaseNo.1263Salvacion
Nueve in Crim. Case No. 1264 Virgilio Maunes in Crim. Case No. 1265
ApolinariaOlayvarinCrim.CaseNo.1267MarizaFlorendoinCrim.CaseNo.
1269],theoffendedparty,totheeffectthatshehasthecapacityandauthoritytorecruit
and enlist persons to work abroad, provided that they give her money in the sum of
P15,000.00 [in Crim. Cases Nos. 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 and 1269] each as
processing and placement fees, which she demanded and received from said
GaudencioAng[theamountofP13,500.00inCrim.CaseNo.1267]asaconditionfor
recruitmentandjobplacement,recruitedandpromisedemploymentorjobplacement
abroadforsaidGaudencioAng,andonceinpossessionoftheamountaforesaid,with
intent to defraud the herein complainant, said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfullyandfeloniouslymisappropriate,misapplyandconverttheaforesaidsumof
moneytoherownpersonaluseandbenefit,tothedamageandprejudiceoftheherein
complainant in the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00), Philippine
Currency.
xxx
14Records(Crim.CaseNo.1261),pp.8283.

427

VOL.544,FEBRUARY12,2008 427
Estinozovs.CourtofAppeals

During the trial, in her defense, petitioner testified, among others,

thatshewasanemployeeoftheCommissiononAuditwhoworked
as a parttime secretary at FCR Recruitment Agency owned by Fe
Corazon Ramirez that she received the amounts 15
claimed by the
complainantsandremittedthesametoRamirez thatcomplainants
16
actuallytransactedwithRamirezandnotwithher 17
andthatshewas
onlyforcedtoexecutethepromissorynotes.

18
On November 9, 1994, the RTC rendered its Decision finding
 18
On November 9, 1994, the RTC rendered its Decision finding
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges of estafa.
Thedispositiveportionofthetrialcourtsdecisionreads:

WHEREFORE, FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the Court hereby renders

judgment finding the accused Cecilia Dejarme Estinozo GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of seven (7) counts of the crime of Estafa through false
pretenses as defined and penalized under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised
PenalCodeunderCriminalCasesNos.1261,1262,1263,1264,1265,1267
and1269,andapplyingtheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,withnomodifying
circumstances to consider for or against her, hereby sentences the said
accused, for EACH of the seven (7) counts of Estafa in the criminal cases
aforementioned,toanindeterminatepenaltyofTWO(2)YEARS,ELEVEN
(11)MONTHSandTEN(10)DAYSofprisioncorreccional,asminimum,
to SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and TWENTY (20) DAYS of
prisionmayor,asmaximum,andtopaythecosts.
Theaccusedisalsoorderedtoreimbursetotheprivatecomplainantsthe
followingamountsprovedduringthetrial:

1. GaudencioAng P15,000.00
2. VirgilioMaunes P15,000.00
3. RogelioCeniza P11,500.00
4. NiloCabardo P15,000.00

_______________

15TSN,October8,1993,pp.623TSN,November16,1993,pp.412.

16TSN,November16,1993,pp.1320TSN,November17,1993,pp.318.

17TSN,November17,1993,pp.1819.

18CARollo,pp.433.

428

428 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Estinozovs.CourtofAppeals

5. MarizaFlorendo P15,000.00
6. SalvacionNueve P15,000.00
7. SalvadorOlayvar P13,500.00

with interest at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the respective
informationsineachcaseofeveryprivatecomplainantuntiltheamountshall
havebeenfullypaid. 19
SOORDERED.

Aggrieved,petitionerappealedthecasetotheCA(docketedasCA
G.R. CR No. 18387). As aforesaid, the appellate court, in the
20
assailed April 30, 2001 Decision, affirmed the ruling of the trial
 20
assailed April 30, 2001 Decision, affirmed the ruling of the trial
court. The CA ruled that the complainants positively identified
petitioner,theirtownmate,astheonewhofalselypresentedherself
aspossessingalicensetorecruitpersonsforoverseasemployment.
Theseven(7)complainantsreliedonthatrepresentationwhenthey
paidtheamountsherequiredasaconditionfortheirbeingemployed 21
abroad. Petitioner even admitted receiving the said fees. The
prosecution had then satisfactorily proved that she committed 22
the
offense of Estafa under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the RPC. Her
defense that she was merely an agent of the real recruiter was
deemedasmerelyalastditchefforttoabsolveherselfofauthorship
ofthecrime.TheCAnotedthatRamirezwasnevermentionedwhen
petitionerconductedherrecruitmentactivities,andnoevidencewas
further introduced
23
to show that petitioner remitted the said fees to
Ramirez.
OnMay30,2001,withinthe15dayreglementaryperiodtofilea
24
motionforreconsiderationorapetitionforreview, petitionerfiled
withtheappellatecourtaMotionforExten

_______________

19Id.,atpp.3233.

20Supranote1.

21CARollo,pp.207208.

22Id.,atp.212.

23Id.,atpp.209211.

24 As alleged in petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for

Reconsideration,shereceivedacopyofthedecisionoftheappellatecourtonMay18,
2001.(Id.,atp.216.)

429

VOL.544,FEBRUARY12,2008 429
Estinozovs.CourtofAppeals
25
sion of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration.
26
On June 28,
2001,theCA,inthechallengedResolution, deniedthesaidmotion
pursuant to Rule 52, Section 1 of the Rules of Court and Rule 9,
Section 2 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals
(RIRCA). 27
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the June
28,2001ResolutionoftheCA.Theappellatecourtdeniedthesame,
28
onAugust17,2001,intheotherassailedResolution.
Displeased with this series29of denials, petitioner instituted the
instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, arguing, among
others,that:(1)herpreviouscounsel,byfilingaprohibitedpleading,
foreclosedherrighttofileamotionforreconsiderationoftheCAs
30
decision,andconsequentlyanappealtherefrom (2)sheshouldnot
beboundbythemistakeofherpreviouscounselespeciallywhenthe
latters negligence and mistake would prejudice
31
her substantial
rightsandwouldaffectherlifeandliberty (3)theappellatecourt
gravelyabuseditsdiscretionwhenitaffirmedpetitionersconviction
for the other four (4) criminal casesCriminal Cases Nos. 1264,
1265, 1267 and 1269absent 32
any direct testimony from the
complainants in those cases (4) she was deprived of her
constitutional right to33 crossexamine the complainants in the
aforementioned4cases and(5)shepresentedsufficient

_______________

25Supranote4.

26Supranote3.

27Supranote6.

28Supranote5.

29Rollo,pp.334.IncompliancewiththeCourtsFebruary6,2002Resolution(Id.,

atp.158.),thepetitioneramendedherpetition,onMarch11,2002,toimpleadasparty
respondentthePeopleofthePhilippines.(Id.,atpp.164195.)
30Id.,atpp.1417.

31Id.,atpp.1720.

32Id.,atpp.2124.

33Id.,atpp.2426.

430

430 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Estinozovs.CourtofAppeals

evidencetocastreasonabledoubtastoherguiltinalltheseven(7)
34
criminalcases.
TheCourtrulestodismissthepetition.
Immediatelyapparentisthatthepetitionisthewrongremedyto
questiontheappellatecourtsissuances.Section1ofRule45ofthe
RulesofCourtexpresslyprovidesthatapartydesiringtoappealby
certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution
35
of the CA
may file a verified petition for review on certiorari. Considering
that,inthiscase,appealbycertiorariwasavailabletopetitioner,she
effectivelyforeclosedherrighttoresorttoaspecialcivilactionfor
certiorari, a limited form of review and a remedy of last recourse,
which lies only where there is no appeal or 36
plain, speedy and
adequateremedyintheordinarycourseoflaw.

_______________

34Id.,atp.26.

35AsamendedbyA.M.No.07712SC,Section1ofRule45nowstates:
 Section1.FilingofpetitionwithSupremeCourt.Apartydesiringtoappealby
certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts,
wheneverauthorizedbylaw,mayfilewiththeSupremeCourtaverifiedpetitionfor
reviewoncertiorari.Thepetitionmayincludeanapplicationforawritofpreliminary
injunctionorotherprovisionalremediesandshallraiseonlyquestionsoflaw,which
mustbedistinctlysetforth.Thepetitionermayseekthesameprovisionalremediesby
verifiedmotionfiledinthesameactionorproceedingatanytimeduringitspendency.
36SeeHeirsofLourdesPotencianoPadillav.CourtofAppeals,469Phil.196,204

425SCRA236,242(2004)butseeMetropolitanWaterworksandSewerageSystemv.
Daway,G.R.No.160732,June21,2004,432SCRA,559,572,inwhichtheCourtruled
thatitisnotenoughthataremedyisavailabletopreventapartyfrommakinguseof
the extraordinary remedy of certiorari but that such remedy be an adequate remedy
whichisequallybeneficial,speedyandsufficient,notonlyaremedywhichatsome
time in the future may offer relief but a remedy which will promptly relieve the
petitionerfromtheinjuriousactsofthelowertribunal.

431

VOL.544,FEBRUARY12,2008 431
Estinozovs.CourtofAppeals

ApetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45andapetitionfor
certiorariunderRule65aremutuallyexclusiveremedies.Certiorari 37
cannotcoexistwithanappealoranyotheradequateremedy. The
natureofthequestionsoflawintendedtoberaisedonappealisof
noconsequence.Itmaywellbethatthosequestionsoflawwilltreat
exclusively of whether or not the judgment or final order was
renderedwithoutorinexcessofjurisdiction,orwithgraveabuseof
discretion.Thisisimmaterial.Theremedyisappeal,notcertiorari
38
asaspecialcivilaction.
Evengrantingarguendothattheinstantcertiorari petition is an
appropriateremedy,stillthisCourtcannotgrantthewritprayedfor
becausewefindnograveabuseofdiscretioncommittedbytheCA
in the challenged issuances. The rule, as it stands now without
exception, is that the 15day reglementary period for appealing or
filingamotionforreconsiderationornewtrialcannotbeextended,
exceptincasesbeforethisCourt,asoneoflastresort,whichmay,in
39
its sound discretion grant the extension requested. This rule also
appliesevenifthemotionisfiledbeforetheexpirationoftheperiod
40
sought to be extended. Thus, the appellate court correctly denied
petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for
Reconsideration.
Itiswelltopointoutthatwithpetitionerserroneousfilingofa
motionforextensionoftimeandwithhernonfilingofamotionfor
reconsiderationorapetitionforreviewfromthe
_______________

37Macawiagv.Balindong,G.R.No.159210,September20,2006,502 SCRA 454,

465.
38PanRealtyCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,No.L47726,November23,1988,

167SCRA564,573.
39Barba v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 169731, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 448

Suarezv.Villarama,Jr.,G.R.No.124512,June27,2006,493SCRA74,83Amatoriov.
People,445Phil.481,488490397SCRA445,454(2003).
40Fernandezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.131094,May16,2005,458SCRA454,

468.

432

432 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Estinozovs.CourtofAppeals

CAs decision, the challenged decision has already attained finality

andmaynolongerbereviewedbythisCourt.TheinstantRule65
41
petitioncannotevensubstituteforthelostappeal certiorariisnot
aproceduraldevicetodeprivethewinningpartyofthefruitsofthe
42
judgment in his or her favor. When a decision becomes final and
executory,thecourtlosesjurisdictionoverthecaseandnotevenan
appellate court will have the power to review the said judgment.
Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation and this will set to
naughtthemainroleofcourtsofjusticetoassistintheenforcement
oftheruleoflawandthemaintenanceofpeaceandorderbysettling
43
justiciablecontroversieswithfinality. 44
We reiterate what we stated in Amatorio v. People that relief
will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the
effectsofthejudgmentwhenthelossoftheremedyatlawwasdue
tohisownnegligence,ortoamistakenmodeofprocedure.
As a final note, we remind partylitigants and their lawyers to
refrainfromfilingfrivolouspetitionsforcertiorari.The2ndand3rd
paragraphsofSection8ofRule65,asamendedbyA.M.No.077
12SC,nowprovidethat:

xxx
However,thecourtmaydismissthepetitionifitfindsthesamepatently
without merit or prosecuted manifestly for delay, or if the questions raised
thereinaretoounsubstantialtorequireconsideration.Insuchevent,thecourt
may award in favor of the respondent treble costs solidarily against the
petitionerandcounsel,in

_______________

41 Nippon Paint Employees UnionOlalia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159010,

November19,2004,443 SCRA 286, 291 Manila Midtown Hotel v. Borromeo, G.R.

No.138305,September22,2004,438SCRA653,657.
42Angv.Grageda,G.R.No.166239,June8,2006,490SCRA424,439.

43Macawiagv.Balindong,supranote37,atp.466.

44Supranote39,at491.

433

VOL.544,FEBRUARY12,2008 433
Estinozovs.CourtofAppeals

addition to subjecting counsel to administrative sanctions under Rules 139

and139BoftheRulesofCourt.
The Court may impose motu propio, based on res ipsa loquitor, other
disciplinary sanctions or measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory
andunmeritoriouspetitionsforcertiorari.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is

DISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
**
YnaresSantiago(Chairperson),AustriaMartinez,Corona
andReyes,JJ.,concur.

Petitiondismissed.

Notes.While indeed the Supreme Court has on occasion set

aside procedural irregularities in the interest of justice, it must be
stressed that liberality of construction of the rules should not be a
panaceaforallproceduralmaladies.(Mercadovs.CourtofAppeals,
441SCRA463[2004])
Theexistenceandavailabilityoftherightofappealproscribesa
resorttocertiorari,becauseoneoftherequirementsforavailmentof
the latter remedy is precisely that there should be no appeal.
(Balindongvs.Dacalos,441SCRA607[2004])
Theremediesofappealandcertiorariaremutuallyexclusiveand
not alternative nor successive. The Supreme Court, in accordance
withtheliberalspiritwhichpervadestheRulesofCourtandinthe
interestofjustice,maytreatapetitionforcertiorariashavingbeen
filed under Rule 45, more so if the same was filed within the
reglementaryperiodforfilingapetitionforreview.(Nuezvs.GSIS
FamilyBank,475SCRA305[2005])

o0o

_______________

**InlieuofAssociateJusticeMinitaV.ChicoNazario,perSpecialOrderNo.484,

datedJanuary11,2008.
 434

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.