9/5/2017 G.R. No.

187448

TodayisTuesday,September05,2017

FIRSTDIVISION

January9,2017

G.R.No.187448

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Petitioner,
vs.

ALFREDOR.DEBORJA,Respondent.

DECISION

CAGUIOA,J.:

BeforethisCourtisanAppealbyCertiorari1filedunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt(Petition),seekingreviewof
the Resolutions dated July 31, 20082 and March 25, 20093 issued by the Sandiganbayan (SB) First Division in
Civil Case No. 0003. 4 The Resolution dated July 31, 2008 granted respondent Alfredo De Borja's (De Borja)
Demurrer to Evidence dated April 15, 20055 (Demurrer to Evidence), while the Resolution dated March 25, 2009
deniedpetitionerRepublicofthePhilippines'(Republic)MotionforReconsiderationdatedAugust15,20086ofthe
ResolutiondatedJuly31,2008.

TheFactualAntecedents

The case stems from a Complaint 7 filed by petitioner Republic, represented by the Presidential Commission on
Good Government, for "Accounting, Reconveyance, Forfeiture, Restitution, and Damages" (Complaint) before the
SB (Civil Case No. 0003) for the recovery of illgotten assets allegedly amassed by the individual respondents
therein, singly or collectively, during the administration of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos.8 Geronimo Z.
Velasco(Velasco),oneofthedefendantsinCivilCaseNo.0003,wasthePresidentandChairmanoftheBoardof
DirectorsofthePhilippineNationalOilCompany(PNOC).9HereinrespondentDeBorjaisVelasco'snephew.10

It appears from the records that PNOC, in the exercise of its functions, would regularly enter into charter
agreements with vessels and, pursuant to industry practice, vessel owners would pay "address commissions" to
PNOCascharterer,amountingtofivepercent(5%)ofthetotalfreight.11Allegedly,duringthetenureofVelasco,no
addresscommissionswereremittedtoPNOC.12

Instead,starting1979,thepercentageoftheaddresscommissionnolongerappearedinthechartercontractsand
the words "as agreed upon" were substituted therefor, per instructions of Velasco. 13 As a result, the supposed
addresscommissionswereremittedtotheaccountofDecisionResearchManagementCompany(DRMC),oneof
thedefendantcorporationsinCivilCaseNo.0003andtheallegedconduitforaddresscommissions.14Velascowas
likewiseallegedtohavedivertedgovernmentfundsbyenteringintoseveraltransactionsinvolvingthepurchaseof
crudeoiltankersandbyreasonofwhichhereceivedbribes,kickbacks,orcommissionsinexchangeforthegranting
ofpermits,licenses,and/orcharterstooiltankerstoservicePNOC.15

Giventheforegoing,petitionerRepublicclaimedthatitwasDeBorjawhocollectedtheseaddresscommissionsin
behalf of Velasco, basing its allegation on the testimony of Epifanio F. Verano16 (Verano), a witness for petitioner
Republic.DeBorjawasfurtherallegedtohaveactedasVelasco'sdummy,nominee,and/oragentforcorporations
heownedand/orcontrolled,suchasDRMC.17

Afterthefilingoftheparties'responsivepleadings,trialonthemeritsensued.Subsequently,upontheconclusionof
itspresentationofevidence,petitionerRepublicsubmitteditsFormalOfferofEvidencedatedMarch6,1995.18

OnApril15,2005,respondentDeBorjafiledhisDemurrertoEvidenceofevendate,statingtherein,amongothers:
(i)thatVerano,ontwo(2)occasions,testifiedthathedeliveredanenvelopetoVelascowho,inturn,instructedhim
todeliverthesametoDeBorja(ii)thatVeranoadmittedthattheenvelopewassealed(iii)thatVeranodidnotopen
theenvelopeandthereforehadnoknowledgeofthecontentsthereof(iv)thatVeranodidnotdelivertheenvelope
personallytoDeBorjaand(v)thatVeranodidnotconfirmwhetherDeBorjainfactreceivedthesaidenvelope.19

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_187448_2017.html 1/8
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 187448
Inturn,petitionerRepublicfiledaComment/OppositiondatedMay9,2005,20towhichrespondentDeBorjafileda
ReplydatedJune2,2005.21

RulingoftheSB

InitsResolutiondatedJuly31,2008,theSBfoundthattheevidencepresentedwasinsufficienttosupportaclaim
for damages against De Borja, thereby granting respondent De Borja's Demurrer to Evidence. In the said
Resolution,theSBratiocinated:

After an assessment of the arguments raised by defendant De Borja and the comments thereto of
plaintiff,thisCourtfindsthattheplaintiffhasfailedtopresentsufficientevidencetoprovethat
defendantDeBorjaisliablefordamagesasaverredinthecomplaint.

Among the witnesses presented by plaintiff, the Court focused on the testimony of the witness for
plaintiff Epifanio F. Verano, who was presented to prove that on two occasions, defendant Velasco
instructed Verano to deliver to defendant De Borja envelopes containing money which constituted
commissionsgivenbyshipbrokers.

Upon crossexamination, however, witness Verano admitted that although he was instructed to
delivertwoenvelopestotheofficeofDeBorja,hedidnotknowforafactthatDeBorjaactually
receivedthem.Moreover,witnessVeranotestifiedthatafterhedeliveredtheenvelopes,hedid
notreceiveanywordthattheydidreachDeBorja,nordidVeranoconfirmDeBorja'sreceiptof
them.

xxxx

PlaintiffalsosoughttoprovedefendantDeBorja'sparticipationintheallegedutilizationofpublicfunds
bytheaffidavitexecutedbyJoseM.Reyes.However,theaffiantJoseM.Reyesnevertestifiedinopen
court,ashehadaheartattacktwodaysbeforehewasscheduledtotakethewitnessstand.xxx

x x x In this case, where the plaintiff's evidence against defendant De Borja consists only of
Verano'stestimonyandReyes'affidavit,nopreponderanceofevidencehasbeensatisfactorily
established.22(Emphasissupplied)

PetitionerRepublicthenfileditsMotionforReconsiderationdatedAugust15,2008,23whichwasdeniedbytheSBin
theResolutionMarch25,2009.

Hence, petitioner Republic filed the instant Petition solely with respect to the liability of respondent De Borja,
claimingthattheSBerredingrantingtheDemurrertoEvidenceandindenyingitsMotionforReconsiderationdated
August15,2008.

InaResolutiondatedJuly15,2009,24theCourtrequiredrespondentDeBorjatofileaComment.Incompliancewith
the Court's directive, respondent De Borja filed his Comment dated September 11, 2009, 25 reiterating the
insufficiency of the evidence adduced before the SB (e.g., testimony of Verano, affidavit of deceased Jose M.
Reyes).

Petitioner Republic then filed its Reply dated June 10, 201026 in due course. A Motion for Early Resolution dated
June7,201127wasthereafterfiledbyrespondentDeBorja,whichwasnotedbytheCourtinitsResolutiondated
August10,2011.28

Parenthetically,onJune16,2011,theSBrenderedaDecisiondismissingCivilCaseNo.0003withrespecttothe
remainingrespondentstherein. This,inturn,wassubjectofanappealbeforethisCourt29and
1avvphi1

docketed as G.R. No. 199323, entitled "Republic of the Philippines vs. Geronimo Z. Velasco, et al". On July 28,
2014, the Court rendered a Resolution, denying the appeal. Thereafter, an Entry of Judgment was made with
respecttoG.R.No.199323.Subsequently,onDecember6,2016,respondentDeBorjafiledaMotiontoDismiss
datedDecember2,2016,30onthegroundthatthePetitionhadbeenrenderedmootandacademicbyreasonofthe
saidEntryofJudgment,whichaffirmedtheJune16,2011DecisionandNovember15,2011ResolutionoftheSB
thatdismissedCivilCaseNo.0003.

Issue

The issue presented for the Court's resolution is whether or not the SB committed reversible error in granting
respondentDeBorja'sDemurrertoEvidence.

TheCourt'sRuling

Beforeproceedingtothesubstantiveissueinthiscase,andfortheguidanceofthebenchandbar,theCourtfindsit
propertofirstdiscussproceduralmatters.

Ademurrertoevidenceisamotiontodismissonthegroundofinsufficiencyofevidence.Itisaremedyavailableto
thedefendant,totheeffectthattheevidenceproducedbytheplaintiffisinsufficientinpointoflaw,whethertrueor
not,tomakeoutacaseorsustainanissue.31Thequestioninademurrertoevidenceiswhethertheplaintiff,byhis
evidenceinchief,hadbeenabletoestablishaprimafaciecase.32

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_187448_2017.html 2/8
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 187448
33
InFelipev.MGMMotorTradingCorp., whereintheproprietyofthetrialcourt'sgrantingofademurrertoevidence
was the crux of the controversy, we held that a review of the dismissal of the complaint naturally entailed a
calibrationoftheevidenceonrecordtoproperlydeterminewhetherthematerialallegationsofthecomplaintwere
amply supported by evidence. This being so, where the resolution of a question requires an examination of the
evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and the relevance of surrounding circumstances, and the
probabilityofspecificsituations,thesameinvolvesaquestionoffact.34

Inthisregard,theCourtemphasizesthatfactualquestionsarenotthepropersubjectofapetitionforreviewunder
Rule45,thesamebeinglimitedonlytoquestionsoflaw.35Notbeingatrieroffacts,theCourtisnotdutyboundto
analyzeandweighagaintheevidencealreadyconsideredintheproceedingsbelow.36Forsuchreasons,theCourt
hasconsistentlydeferredtothefactualfindingsofthetrialcourt,inlightoftheuniqueopportunityaffordedthemto
observethedemeanorandspontaneityofthewitnessinassessingthecredibilityoftheirtestimony.37

Further,inhisCommentdatedSeptember11,2009,respondentDeBorjapointsouttheinadvertenceofpetitioner
Republic,throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,tosubmitproofofserviceontheSandiganbayanofacopyof
theinstantPetitionandtheprecedingMotionforExtensionofTimetoFilePetitionforReviewdatedApril29,2009.38
In this regard, the failure of petitioner Republic to strictly comply with Section 5(d), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court
alreadyrendersitsPetitiondismissible.39

Nevertheless,consideringthatrulesofprocedurearesubservienttosubstantiverights,andinordertofinallywrite
finis to this prolonged litigation, the Court hereby dispenses with the foregoing lapses in the broader interest of
justice.TheCourthasrepeatedlyfavoredtheresolutionofdisputesonthemerits,ratherthanonproceduraldefects.

Further, anent the claim of respondent De Borja that the Petition had already been rendered moot and academic
duetothedismissalofCivilCaseNo.0003bytheSB,theCourtfindsthesamelackinginmerit.Itisaxiomaticthat
adismissalonthebasisofademurrertoevidenceissimilartoajudgmentitisafinalorderrulingonthemeritsofa
case.40 Hence, when petitioner Republic brought the instant appeal before this Court, the same was limited to
respondent De Borja's liability alone. In this regard, the propriety of the SB's granting of respondent De Borja's
DemurrertoEvidence,whichisthesubjectmatterofthiscase,isseparateanddistinctfromthesubjectmatterof
theappealinG.R.No.199323,i.e.,liabilityofVelasco,etal.

Thus,respondentDeBorja'sclaiminhisMotiontoDismissthat"thecomplaintagainst[him]wasdismissednotonly
oncebuttwice"isinaccurateandlegallyflawed.Perforce,itisofnomomentthattheSBdismissedCivilCaseNo.
0003asthesamewasmerelywithrespecttotherespondentsotherthanrespondentDeBorjawho,bythen,was
alreadyconfrontedwiththeinstantappealbroughtbypetitionerRepublic.

ThesingularquestionfortheCourtnowisthis:whetherpetitionerRepublicwasabletoadducesufficientevidence
to prove the alleged complicity of respondent De Borja with the required quantum of evidence. After a judicious
reviewoftherecordsandthesubmissionsoftheparties,theCourtrulesinthenegative.

Case law has defined "burden of proof' as the duty to establish the truth of a given proposition or issue by such
quantumofevidenceasthelawdemandsinthecaseatwhichtheissuearises.41Incivilcases,theburdenofproof
isontheplaintifftoestablishhiscasebypreponderanceofevidence,i.e.,superiorweightofevidenceontheissues
involved.42"Preponderanceofevidence"meansevidencewhichisofgreaterweight,ormoreconvincingthanthat
whichisofferedinoppositiontoit.43

Inademurrertoevidence,however,itisprematuretospeakof"preponderanceofevidence"becauseitisfiledprior
to the defendant's presentation of evidence it is precisely the office of a demurrer to evidence to expeditiously
terminatethecasewithouttheneedofthedefendant'sevidence.44Hence,whatiscrucialisthedeterminationasto
whethertheplaintiffsevidenceentitlesittothereliefsought.

Specifically, the inquiry in this case is confined to resolving whether petitioner Republic is entitled to "Accounting,
Reconveyance,Forfeiture,Restitution,andDamages"basedontheevidenceithaspresented.

As repeatedly stressed by respondent De Borja, the only evidence presented with respect to his liability is the
testimonyofVeranoandtheaffidavitofoneJoseM.Reyes,assummarizedbelow:

(i)AffidavitofJoseM.Reyes

With respect to the affidavit of Jose M. Reyes, his nonappearance before the SB due to his untimely demise
renderedthesameinadmissibleinevidenceforbeinghearsay,ascorrectlyobservedbytheSB.45

(ii)TestimonyofVerano

Verano was presented to prove that on two (2) occasions, Velasco had instructed him to deliver to De Borja
envelopesallegedlycontainingthe"addresscommissions".46

SOLURETA

Q:Couldyoutellusabout,ifyouknow,anyparticularinstanceanypaymentbyaddresscommissionto
PNOC?

A:Ibegly(sic)recall.Abrokercomingtothehousehandingmeabrownenvelopefordeliverytothe
Minister.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_187448_2017.html 3/8
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 187448
Q:WhoistheMinister?

A:MinisterVelasco.

xxxx

Q:Doyouknowthecontentsofthatenvelope,Mr.witness?

A:Itwassealed.SinceitisforsomebodyelseIdidnotopenit.

Q:Whatdidhesayatthattimehehandedtoyouthatenvelope?

A:Hesaidthatisfrom"XC".

xxxx

Q:Wouldyoutelluswhatwasyourunderstandingastothecontentsofthatparticularenvelope?

ATTY.MENDOZA

Objection,yourHonorplease,itcallsforanopinion.

PJGA[R]CHITORENA

Laythebasis...

SOLURETA

Q:Mr.witness,accordingtoyoutheenvelopewasgiventoyouandforwhatpurposeagain?

ATTY.MENDOZA

Alreadyanswered.Hesaiditwastobedelivered.

PJGA[R]CHITORENA

Q:Andhedidnotknowthecontentsbecauseitwasasealedenvelope.

SOLURETA

Q:WerethereanyindicationfromMr.Hegeratthattimeastowhatthatparticularenvelope
contained?

A:No,hedidnotsayso.

Q:Butthencouldyoutelluswhatwasyourimpression...

PJGA[R]CHITORENA

Impressionastowhat?

SOLURETA

Astothenatureofdelivery.

ATTY.MENDOZA

Objection,thatcallsforanopinion.

xxxx

PJGA[R]CHITORENA

It could contain shirt, it could contain pieces of paper, it could contain clippings. You must
showthatyouhavebasisforthatquestion.Butinfacthesaid,hedo(sic)notknow.Hedid(sic)
knowwhatcontentswas(sic).Anyquestionalongthatlinewillbeaguess.Heisnotexpertat
feelings(sic)thingsincomingoutwitharesult...Weknowwhichwasyouwant(sic)togoandforthat
veryreasonMr.Mendozaisobjectingbecauseyougiveusthefalse.

Q:Whatdidyoudowiththatenvelopeforheaven'ssake?

A:Ibroughtittohim.WhatwillIdowithitit'snotmine.IwastoldtogiveittotheMinister.

SOLURETA

Q:Whathappenedwhenyouweren't(sic)totheMinister?

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_187448_2017.html 4/8
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 187448
A:TobringittotheofficeofMr.deBorja.

xxxx

Q:WhatdidMr.Velascosaywithrespecttothatenvelope.

A:HetoldmetobringittoMr.deBorja.

Q:WhoisMr.deBorja?

A:AtthattimehewasconnectedwithGerver.

Q:WhathappenedwhenyoubroughtittotheofficeofMr.deBorja?

A:IbroughtittotheofficeofMr.deBorjaandhewasn'tthere,soIjustleftit.

xxxx

SOLURETA

Q:Werethereotheroccasionswhenenvelope(sic)wasgiventoyoubyabroker?

A:Irecallonceinearly80's.

Q:Whowastheparticularbrokerthatbroughttoyoutheenvelope?

A:Mr.DavidReynolds.

Q:Willyoutellusthecircumstanceofthatdelivery?

A:Well,hejustcametotheofficeIthoughthewasgoingthereforacupofcoffeeandthenhesaid
givethistoMr.Velasco,that'sit.

Q:Didyouknowwherethatenvelopethat(sic)particulartime?

A:IbroughtitovertoMakatibecauseIwasholdingofficealongRoxasBlvd.

Q:Towhomdidyoubringthatenvelope?

A:TotheofficeofMr.Velasco.

Q:WhathappenedafterwardswhenyoubroughttheenvelopetoMr.Velasco?

A:AgainhetoldmetobringitovertoGerver.

Q:DidyoubringittoGerver?

A:Ileftitthere.

PJGA[R]CHITORENA

Q:Towhomdidyouleft(sic)it?

A:SupposedtobeforMr.deBorja,butMr.deBorjawasnotaround.

xxxx

Q:Thefirstone,whenwasitmoreorless,whensomebodycalled,Mr.Heger?

A:Late'70's,yourHonor.[t.s.n.pp.114123,March1995VeranoonDirect.]47(Additionalemphasis
supplied)

Moreover,duringVerano'scrossexamination,itwasrevealedthathewasnotknowledgeableofthecontentsofthe
envelopesandthathealsoneverconfirmedwhetherrespondentDeBorjahadactuallyreceivedthem:

Q: Referring to this envelope which you mentioned in your direct testimony, both the envelopes
deliveredbyMr.HagartoyouandMr.Reynolds.Theyweresealed?

A:Right.

Q:Youdidnotopenthem?

A:No,sir.

Q:WhenyoubroughttotheOfficeofMr.Velascotheyremainedsealed?

A:Theyremainedsealed.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_187448_2017.html 5/8
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 187448
Q:AndwhenyoubroughtthemtotheOfficeofMr.DeBorja...

A:Theyremainedsealed[t.s.n.,p.162March1995VeranoonCross].

PJGA[R]CHITORENA

Q:Regardingthesetwoenvelopes,yousaidthatyoudeliveredtheseenvelopesintheOfficeofMr.de
Borja?

A:Yes,yourHonor.

Q:ButdeBorjawasnotaroundatthattime?

A:Thatisright.

PJGA[R]CHITORENA

Q:AfterdeliverydidyoureceiveanywordthattheenvelopesdidnotreachMr.deBorja?

WITNESS

A:Ididnotreceiveanyreport.

Q:Fromanybody?

A:Fromanybody.

Q:DidyoumeetMr.deBorjaanytimebeforethedelivery?

A:No,sir.

Q:SubsequentlydidyoumeetMr.deBorja?

A:Yes.

Q:Didyoubringthematteroftheenvelope?

A:No,sir.

Q:Didhebringthematterwithyou?

A:No,sir.[t.s.n.,pp.2122,2March1995Verano,QuestionsfromtheCourt].48

In the face of the foregoing testimony, the insinuations of petitioner Republic in the instant Petition can best be
described as speculative, conjectural, and inconclusive at best. Nothing in the testimony of Verano reasonably
points,orevenalludes,totheconclusionthatDeBorjaactedasadummyorconduitofVelascoinreceivingaddress
commissionsfromvesselowners.

TheCourtjoinsandconcursintheSB'sobservationspertainingtoVerano'swantofknowledgewithrespecttothe
contentsoftheenvelopesallegedlydeliveredtorespondentDeBorja'soffice,whichremainedsealedtheentiretime
it was in Verano' s possession. As admitted by Verano himself, he did not and could not have known what was
inside the envelopes when they were purportedly entrusted to him for delivery. In the same vein, Verano did not
evenconfirmrespondentDeBorja'sreceiptoftheenvelopes,despitenumerousopportunitiestodoso.Relatedly,it
wasfurtherrevealedduringthecrossexaminationofVeranothatinthefirstplace,Velascodidnotevendealdirectly
withbrokers.49

Alltold,theCourtfindsthattheevidenceadducediswhollyinsufficienttosupporttheallegationsoftheComplaint
beforetheSB.Thus,forfailureofpetitionerRepublictoshowanyrighttothereliefsought,theCourtaffirmstheSB
ingrantingtheDemurrertoEvidence.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thePetitionisDENIEDandtheResolutionsdatedJuly31,2008andMarch
25,2009oftheSandiganbayanFirstDivisioninCivilCaseNo.0003areherebyAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

ALFREDOBENJAMINS.CAGUIOA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_187448_2017.html 6/8
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 187448
ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttotheSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhad
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1
Rollo,pp.1132.
2
Id.at5463.PennedbyPresidingJusticeDiosdadoM.Peralta(nowaMemberofthisCourt),withAssociate
JusticesRodolfoA.PonferradaandEfrenN.DeLaCruzconcurring.
3
Id. at 4952. Penned by Associate Justice Norberto Y. Geraldez, with Associate Justices Efren N. De La
CruzandRodolfoA.Ponferradaconcurring.
4
Entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. Geronimo Z. Velasco, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos,
Alfredo R. De Borja, Epifania Verano, Gervel Inc., Telin Development Corporation, Republic Glass
Corporation,Nobel(Phils.)Inc.,AC!Philippines,Inc.,PrivateInvestmentsCo.forAsia,CentralAzucareraDe
Danao, Malaganas Coal Mining Corporation, S.A. (Panama), Decision Research Management (Hongkong),
AtlanticManagementCorp.(USA)".
5
Rollo,pp.484508.
6
Id.at6874.
7
ThirdAmendedComplaintdatedSeptember20,1991(id.at188213).TheThirdAmendedComplaintwas
admittedbytheSBinitsResolutionpromulgatedonJanuary28,1992(id.at214219).
8
Id.at189.
9
Id.at201.
10
Id.at192.
11
Id.at203.
12
Seeid.
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
Id.at200201.
16
VicePresidentofPNOCandallegedlyactedasnegotiatorforPNOCwithrespecttothecharteredvessels
(id. at 203). While originally, Epifanio F. Verano was a defendant, in the SB's Resolution dated March 21,
1995, the PCGG granted him full immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for his testimony in
connectionwithCivilCaseNo.0003(Seerollo,p.379).
17
Id.at203.
18
Id.at328352.
19
Id.at487488.
20
Id.at509525.
21
Id.at22.
22
Id.at6062.
23
Id.at6874.
24
Id.at527528.
25
Id.at545583.
26
Id.at645654.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_187448_2017.html 7/8
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 187448
27
Id.at659662.
28
Id.at665.
29
FirstDivision.
30
Rollo,pp.667678.
31
SeeFelipev.MGMMotorTradingCorp.,G.R.No.191849,September23,2015,p.5.
32
SpousesCondesv.CourtofAppeals,555Phil.311,323(2007).
33
Felipev.MGMMotorTradingCorp.,supranote31,at56.
34
Zoletav.Sandiganbayan(FourthDivision),G.R.No.185224,July29,2015,764SCRA110,121.
35
Section1,Rule45,RULESOFCOURT.
36
Mirov.Vda.deErederos,721Phil.772.785(2013).
37
SeePeoplev.Gahi,727Phil.642,658(2014).
38
Rollo,pp.547548.
39
SEC.5.Groundsfordismissalofappeal.Theappealmaybedismissedmotupropriooronmotionofthe
respondentonthefollowinggrounds:

xxxx

(d)Failuretocomplywiththerequirementsregardingproofofserviceandcontentsofandthe
documentswhichshouldaccompanythepetition
40
Republicv.Gimenez,G.R.No.174673,January11,2016,p.2.
41
FarEastBank&TrustCompanyv.Chante,719Phil.221,233(2013).
42
Section1,Rule133,RULESOFCOURT.
43
SpousesCondesv.CourtofAppeals,supranote32.
44
Id.at323324.
45
Seerollo,p.61.
46
Id.at60.
47
Id.at555561.
48
Id.at573574.
49
Id.at577578.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_187448_2017.html 8/8