THIRDDIVISION

ALEJANDRONGWEE,
G.R.No.171124
Petitioner,

Present:

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,

Chairperson,

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
versus

CORONA,*

NACHURA,and

REYES,JJ.

Promulgated:
MANUELTANKIANSEE,

Respondent.
February13,2008

xx

DECISION

NACHURA,J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
[1]
assailingtheSeptember14,2005Decision oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.
[2]
90130anditsJanuary6,2006Resolution denyingthemotionforreconsiderationthereof.

Thefactsareundisputed.PetitionerAlejandro Ng Wee, a valued client of Westmont Bank (now

UnitedOverseasBank),madeseveralmoneyplacementstotalingP210,595,991.62withthebanks
affiliate,WestmontInvestmentCorporation(Wincorp),adomesticentityengagedinthebusiness
[3]
ofaninvestmenthousewiththeauthorityandlicensetoextendcredit.

Sometime in February 2000, petitioner received disturbing news on Wincorps financial

condition prompting him to inquire about and investigate the companys operations and
transactionswithitsborrowers.Hethendiscoveredthatthecompanyextendedaloanequaltohis
totalmoneyplacementtoacorporation[PowerMerge]withasubscribedcapitalofonlyP37.5M.
ThiscreditfacilityoriginatedfromanotherloanofaboutP1.5BextendedbyWincorptoanother
corporation [Hottick Holdings]. When the latter defaulted in its obligation, Wincorp instituted a

caseagainstitanditssurety.Settlementwas,however,reachedinwhichHottickspresident,Luis
[4]
JuanL.Virata(Virata),assumedtheobligationofthesurety.

UndertheschemeagreeduponbyWincorpandHottickspresident,petitionersmoneyplacements
weretransferredwithouthisknowledgeandconsenttotheloanaccountofPowerMergethrough
an agreement that virtually freed the latter of any liability. Allegedly, through the false
representations of Wincorp and its officers and directors, petitioner was enticed to roll over his
[5]
placementssothatWincorpcouldloanthesametoVirata/PowerMerge.

FindingthatViratapurportedlyusedPowerMergeasaconduitandconnivedwithWincorps
officersanddirectorstofraudulentlyobtainforhisbenefitwithoutanyintentionofpayingthesaid
placements,petitionerinstituted,onOctober19,2000,CivilCaseNo.0099006fordamageswith
[6]
theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofManila. Oneofthedefendantsimpleadedinthecomplaintis
[7]
hereinrespondentManuelTankiansee,ViceChairmanandDirectorofWincorp.

OnOctober26,2000,onthebasisoftheallegationsinthecomplaintandtheOctober12,
[8]
2000 Affidavit of petitioner, the trial court ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachmentagainstthepropertiesnotexemptfromexecutionofallthedefendantsinthecivilcase
[9]
subject,amongothers,topetitionersfilingofaP50Mbond. Thewritwas,consequently,issued
[10]
onNovember6,2000.

Arguing that the writ was improperly issued and that the bond furnished was grossly
[11]
insufficient, respondent, on December 22, 2000, moved for the discharge of the attachment.
[12]
The other defendants likewise filed similar motions.
On October 23, 2001, the RTC, in an
[13]
OmnibusOrder,
denied all the motions for the discharge of the attachment. The defendants,
[14]
including respondent herein, filed their respective motions for reconsideration
but the trial
[15]
courtdeniedthesameonOctober14,2002.

Incidentally, while respondent opted not to question anymore the said orders, his co

defendants, Virata and UEMMARA Philippines Corporation (UEMMARA), assailed the same
viacertiorariunderRule65beforetheCA[docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.74610].Theappellate
[16]
court, however, denied the certiorari petition on August 21, 2003,
and the motion for
[17]
reconsiderationthereofonMarch16,2004.
Inapetitionforreviewoncertioraribeforethis
Court,inG.R.No.162928,wedeniedthepetitionandaffirmedtheCArulingsonMay19,2004
forViratasandUEMMARAsfailuretosufficientlyshowthattheappellatecourtcommittedany
[18]
[19]
reversibleerror.
WesubsequentlydeniedthepetitionwithfinalityonAugust23,2004.

OnSeptember30,2004,respondentfiledbeforethetrialcourtanotherMotiontoDischarge
[20]
Attachment,
repleading the grounds he raised in his first motion but raising the following
additional grounds: (1) that he was not present in Wincorps board meetings approving the
[21]
questionabletransactions
and(2)thathecouldnothaveconnivedwithWincorpandtheother
defendants because he and Pearlbank Securities, Inc., in which he is a major stockholder, filed
[22]
casesagainstthecompanyastheywerealsovictimizedbyitsfraudulentschemes.

Ruling that the grounds raised were already passed upon by it in the previous orders
affirmedbytheCAandthisCourt,andthattheadditionalgroundswererespondentsaffirmative
defensesthatproperlypertainedtothemeritsofthecase,thetrialcourtdeniedthemotioninits
[23]
January6,2005Order.

[24]
Withthedenialofitsmotionforreconsideration,
respondentfiledacertioraripetition
beforetheCAdocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.90130.OnSeptember14,2005,theappellatecourt
[25]
rendered the assailed Decision
reversing and setting aside the aforementioned orders of the
[26]
trialcourtandliftingtheNovember6,2000WritofPreliminaryAttachment
totheextentthat
it concerned respondents properties. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the said ruling,
[27]
buttheCAdeniedthesameinitsJanuary6,2006Resolution.

Thus,petitionerfiledtheinstantpetitiononthefollowinggrounds:

A.


ITISRESPECTFULLYSUBMITTEDTHATTHECOURTOFAPPEALSSHOULDNOTHAVE
GIVEN DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY RESPONDENT,
SINCE IT MERELY RAISED ERRORS IN JUDGMENT, WHICH, UNDER PREVAILING
JURISPRUDENCE,ARENOTTHEPROPERSUBJECTSOFAWRITOFCERTIORARI.

B.

MOREOVER, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS

COMMITTED SERIOUS LEGAL ERROR IN RESOLVING FAVORABLY THE GROUNDS
ALLEGED BY RESPONDENT IN HIS PETITION AND (SIC) LIFTING THE WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT, SINCE THESE GROUNDS ALREADY RELATE TO THE
MERITS OF CIVIL CASE NO. 0099006 WHICH, UNDER PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE,
CANNOT BE USED AS BASIS (SIC) FOR DISCHARGING A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT.

C.

LIKEWISE, ITISRESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THATTHE COURT OFAPPEALSERRED

INSUSTAININGTHE ERRORS INJUDGMENT ALLEGED BY RESPONDENT,NOTONLY
BECAUSETHESEAREBELIEDBYTHEVERYDOCUMENTSHESUBMITTEDASPROOF
OFSUCHERRORS,BUTALSOBECAUSETHESEHADEARLIERBEENRESOLVEDWITH
[28]
FINALITYBYTHELOWERCOURT.

Forhispart,respondentcounters,amongothers,thatthegeneralandsweepingallegationof
fraud against respondent in petitioners affidavitrespondent as an officer and director ofWincorp
allegedlyconnivedwiththeotherdefendantstodefraudpetitionerisnotsufficientbasisforthetrial
court to order the attachment of respondents properties. Nowhere in the said affidavit does
petitionermentionthenameofrespondentandanyspecificactcommittedbythelattertodefraud
theformer.Awritofattachmentcanonlybegrantedonconcreteandspecificgroundsandnoton
generalavermentsquotingperfunctorilythewordsoftheRules.Connivancecannotalsobebased
onmereassociationbutmustbeparticularlyallegedandestablishedasafact.Respondentfurther
contendsthatthetrialcourt,inresolvingtheMotiontoDischargeAttachment,neednotactually
delve into the merits of the case. All that the court has to examine are the allegations in the
complaintandthesupportingaffidavit.Petitionercannotalsorelyonthedecisionsoftheappellate
courtinCAG.R.SPNo.74610andthisCourtinG.R.No.162928tosupporthisclaimbecause
[29]
respondentisnotapartytothesaidcases.

Weagreewithrespondentscontentionsanddenythepetition.

In the case at bench, the basis of petitioners application for the issuance of the writ of
preliminaryattachmentagainstthepropertiesofrespondentisSection1(d)ofRule57oftheRules

ofCourtwhichpertinentlyreads:

Section1.Groundsuponwhichattachmentmayissue.Atthecommencementoftheactionor
atanytimebeforeentryofjudgment,aplaintifforanyproperpartymayhavethepropertyofthe
adversepartyattachedassecurityforthesatisfactionofanyjudgmentthatmayberecoveredinthe
followingcases:

xxxx

(d)Inanactionagainstapartywhohasbeenguiltyofafraudincontractingthedebtorincurring
theobligationuponwhichtheactionisbrought,orintheperformancethereof.

For a writ of attachment to issue under this rule, the applicant must sufficiently show the
factual circumstances of the alleged fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the
[30]
debtorsmerenonpaymentofthedebtorfailuretocomplywithhisobligation.
Theapplicant
[31]
must then be able to demonstrate that the debtor has intended to defraud the creditor.
In
[32]
LibertyInsuranceCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,
weexplainedasfollows:

Tosustainanattachmentonthisground,itmustbeshownthatthedebtorincontractingthe
debt or incurring the obligation intended to defraud the creditor. The fraud must relate to the
executionoftheagreementandmusthavebeenthereasonwhichinducedtheotherpartyintogiving
consentwhichhewouldnothaveotherwisegiven.ToconstituteagroundforattachmentinSection
1 (d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, fraud should be committed upon contracting the obligation
sued upon. A debt is fraudulently contracted if at the time of contracting it the debtor has a
preconceivedplanorintentionnottopay,asitisinthiscase.Fraudisastateofmindandneednot
[33]
beprovedbydirectevidencebutmaybeinferredfromthecircumstancesattendantineachcase.

[34]
In the instant case, petitioners October 12, 2000 Affidavit
is bereft of any factual
statement that respondent committed a fraud. The affidavit narrated only the alleged fraudulent
transaction between Wincorp andVirata and/or Power Merge, which, by the way, explains why
thisCourt,inG.R.No.162928,affirmedthewritofattachmentissuedagainstthelatter.Astothe
participationofrespondentinthesaidtransaction,theaffidavitmerelystatesthatrespondent,an
officer and director of Wincorp, connived with the other defendants in the civil case to defraud
petitioner of his money placements. No other factual averment or circumstance details how
respondentcommittedafraudorhowheconnivedwiththeotherdefendantstocommitafraudin
the transaction sued upon. In other words, petitioner has not shown any specific act or deed to
supporttheallegationthatrespondentisguiltyoffraud.

[35]
Theaffidavit,beingthefoundationofthewrit,
mustcontainsuchparticularsastohow
thefraudimputedtorespondentwascommittedforthecourttodecidewhetherornottoissuethe
[36]
writ.
Absentanystatementofotherfactualcircumstancestoshowthatrespondent,atthetime
of contracting the obligation, had a preconceived plan or intention not to pay, or without any
showingofhowrespondentcommittedtheallegedfraud,thegeneralavermentintheaffidavitthat
respondentisanofficeranddirectorofWincorpwhoallegedlyconnivedwiththeotherdefendants
[37]
tocommitafraud,isinsufficienttosupporttheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryattachment.
Intheapplicationforthewritunderthesaidground,compellingistheneedtogiveahintabout
[38]
whatconstitutedthefraudandhowitwasperpetrated
becauseestablishedistherulethatfraud
[39]
is never presumed.
Verily, the mere fact that respondent is an officer and director of the
company does not necessarily give rise to the inference that he committed a fraud or that he
connivedwiththeotherdefendantstocommitafraud.Whileundercertaincircumstances,courts
maytreatacorporationasamereaggroupmentofpersons,towhomliabilitywilldirectlyattach,
[40]
thisisonlydonewhenthewrongdoinghasbeenclearlyandconvincinglyestablished.

Let it be stressed that the provisional remedy of preliminary attachment is harsh and
[41]
rigorous for it exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance.
The rules governing its
[42]
issuanceare,therefore,strictlyconstruedagainsttheapplicant,
suchthatiftherequisitesfor
itsgrantarenotshowntobeallpresent,thecourtshallrefrainfromissuingit,for,otherwise,the
[43]
courtwhichissuesitactsinexcessofitsjurisdiction.
Likewise,thewritshouldnotbeabused
to cause unnecessary prejudice. If it is wrongfully issued on the basis of false or insufficient
[44]
allegations,itshouldatoncebecorrected.

Considering, therefore, that, in this case, petitioner has not fully satisfied the legal
obligationtoshowthespecificactsconstitutiveoftheallegedfraudcommittedbyrespondent,the
trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it issued the writ of preliminary attachment
againstthepropertiesofrespondent.

[45]
WearenotunmindfuloftheruleenunciatedinG.B.Inc.,etc.v.Sanchez,etal.,
that

[t]hemeritsofthemainactionarenottriableinamotiontodischargeanattachmentotherwisean
[46]
applicantforthedissolutioncouldforceatrialofthemeritsofthecaseonhismotion.

However, the principle finds no application here because petitioner has not yet fulfilled the
requirements set by the Rules of Court for the issuance of the writ against the properties of
[47]
respondent.
The evil sought to be prevented by the said ruling will not arise, because the
propriety or impropriety of the issuance of the writ in this case can be determined by simply
readingthecomplaintandtheaffidavitinsupportoftheapplication.

Furthermore,ourrulinginG.R.No.162928,totheeffectthatthewritofattachmentisproperly
issuedinsofarasitconcernsthepropertiesofVirataandUEMMARA,doesnotaffectrespondent
[48]
herein,for,ascorrectlyruledbytheCA,respondentisneverapartythereto.
Also,heisnotin
the same situation as Virata and UEMMARA since, as aforesaid, while petitioners affidavit
detailedtheallegedfraudulentschemeperpetratedbyVirataand/orPowerMerge,onlyageneral
allegationoffraudwasmadeagainstrespondent.

We state, in closing, that our ruling herein deals only with the writ of preliminary
attachmentissuedagainstthepropertiesofrespondentitdoesnotconcerntheotherpartiesinthe
civilcase,noraffectthetrialcourtsresolutiononthemeritsoftheaforesaidcivilcase.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisDENIED.TheSeptember14,2005Decision
and the January 6, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 90130 are
AFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
RENATOC.CORONA

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,
I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
*InlieuofAssociateJusticeMinitaV.ChicoNazarioperSpecialOrderNo.484datedJanuary11,2008.
[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeVicenteS.E.Veloso,withAssociateJusticesRobertoA.Barrios(deceased)andAmelitaG.Tolentino,
concurringrollo,pp.4455.
[2]
Rollo,p.57.
[3]
Id.at6163,650.
[4]
Id.at6367,650652.
[5]
Id.at6771,652653.

[6]
Id.at58.
[7]
Id.at60.TheotherdefendantsinthecivilcaseareLuisJuanL.Virata,PowerMergeCorporation,UEMDevelopmentPhilippines,
Inc.,UEMMARAPhilippinesCorporation,UnitedEngineers(Malaysia)Berhad,MajlisAmanahRakyat,RenongBerhad,Westmont
Investment Corporation,Antonio T. Ong, Anthony A.T. Reyes, Simeon S. Cua, Mariza SantosTan, Vicente T. Cualoping, Henry T.
Cualoping,ManuelA.EstrellaandJohnAnthonyB.Espiritu.
[8]
Id.at377383.ThematerialportionsoftheOctober12,2000Affidavitread:
4.InordertoenticemetoplacesubstantialfundsinWincorp,thelattersofficersandsaidManagerofWestmontBankBinondoBranch,

whoactivelymarketedWincorpsbusiness,madethefollowingrepresentationstome:
4.1.MoneyplacementswithWincorpwouldearnmoreinterestthananordinarysavingsortimedepositofthesame
amountwithWestmontBank.
4.2.MoneyplacementswithWincorpareprofitable,stableandsecurebecausethefundsareloanedtoborrowerswho
areextensivelyscreenedandwhoarerequiredtoprovidesufficientsecurityinaccordancewithgenerallyaccepted
bankingstandardsandpracticeslikethoseobservedbyWestmontBank.
4.3.WincorpisstablesinceWincorpandWestmontBankwereownedorcontrolledbythesameshareholdersand
thus,hasthebackingofWestmontBank.
4.4. Being a depositor of Westmont Bank, I could easily make or withdraw my money placements by merely
instructingWestmontBankandWincorptotransferthefundsfrommyaccountsandremitthesametotheother.
5.Relyingonsaidrepresentations,IplacedsubstantialamountsofmoneyinmyownnameandinthenamesofotherswithWincorpon
several occasions. Some of my outstanding placements with Wincorp, which were loaned by Wincorp, are in the names of Robert
TabadaTan,ElizabethNgWee,AlexLimTanandAngelaArchangelwhoholdsaidplacementsintrustforme.
6.EachmoneyplacementIgavetoWincorpandWincorpsreceiptthereofisevidencedbyaconfirmationadviceissuedbyWincorp.
7.IwasassuredbytheofficersofWincorpwithwhomItransactedthatuponmaturityofeachmoneyplacement,thematurityvalue
thereof can be withdrawn from Wincorp or the same can be rolled over as principal for another money placement at the prevailing
interestrateatthetimeoftherollover.IwasalsoassuredbytheofficersofWincorpthattheywouldallowme,beingavaluedclient,to
preterminate my accounts/placements if I needed to withdraw the proceeds thereof before their maturity dates. However, I would
usuallyrollovermostoftheplacements,upontheadviceandenticementofWincorp.
8.SometimeinFebruary2000,IreceiveddisturbingnewsaboutthefinancialconditionandthequestionableoperationsofWincorpand
itsborrowers.
9.ConsideringthatIhadsizeableplacementswithWincorp,Iconductedinquiriesandinvestigatedtheveracityofthenewsreports.
10.Basedonmyinquiriesandthedocuments,whichcametomypossessionasaresultthereof,Idiscoveredthefollowing:
xxxx
11. It must be noted that my money placements were transferred to the loan account of Power Merge by Wincorp and its
officers/directors, without my prior knowledge and consent. Later, however, through false representations by Wincorp and its
officers/directors,IwasenticedtorollovertheplacementswhichwereloanedtoVirata/PowerMergebecauseIwasmadetobelievethat
thelatterwerenotindefaultoftheirloanobligationsotherwise,Wincorpanditsofficers/directorswouldnothaverenewedtheloansor
grantadditionalloanstoVirata/PowerMerge.
12. The principal amount of my money placements/funds which were loaned by Wincorp to Virata/Power Merge, is at least Two
Hundred Ten Million Five Hundred NinetyFive Thousand Nine Hundred NinetyOne and 62/100 Pesos (P210,595,991.62). [cf.
ConfirmationAdvices(AnnexesS,S1toS35oftheComplaint)]
13.Saidmoneyplacementshaveallmaturedandarenowallpastdueandowing.
14.However,despitedemand,Virata/PowerMergehaverefusedandcontinuetorefusetopaymethesaidoutstandingloanobligations.
[cf.AnnexesT,T1,T2andT3oftheComplaint]
15.Basedontheforegoing,itisevidentthatIhaveasufficientcauseofactionforthepaymentoftheoutstandingloanobligationtome
intheprincipalamountofTwoHundredTenMillionFiveHundredNinetyFiveThousandNineHundredNinetyOneand62/100Pesos
(P210,595,991.62),plusallstipulatedinterests,liquidateddamagesandattorneysfeesagainstPowerMergeandViratawhobeneficially
ownsallthesharesofstockofthelatterandwhopersonallyusedand/orbenefitedfrommyplacements/funds.Ialsohaveacauseof
action against Wincorp and its officers and directors considering that the damage and prejudice to me could not have been caused
withouttheirparticipationandconnivancewithVirata/PowerMergeingrantingloanstothelatterusingmyfunds/placements.
16.Fromtheforegoingfacts,itclearlyappearsthattheactsofWincorpanditsofficersanddirectorsingrantingloanstoVirata/Power
Mergeusingmyfunds/placementswiththelatterhavingnointentionnorcapacitytopaysaidloanobligation,constitutefraudbothin
contractingthedebtorincurringtheobligation,andintheperformancethereofunderSection1,Rule57oftheRulesofCourt.
17. There is no other security for my legitimate claims in the principal amount of at least Two Hundred Ten Million Five Hundred
NinetyFiveThousandNineHundredNinetyOneand62/100Pesos(P210,595,991.62),plusallstipulatedinterests,liquidateddamages
andattorneysfees,whichamountislikewisetheamounttowhichIamentitledandforwhichtheorderofattachmentissoughtaboveall
legalcounterclaims.
[9]
Id.at384386.
[10]
Id.at387.
[11]
Id.at390393.Thisisrespondentsfirstmotiontodischargetheattachment.
[12]
Id.at400.
[13]
Id.at400404.
[14]
Id.at405410.
[15]
Id.at412417.
[16]
Id.at419433.TheAugust21,2003DecisionoftheappellatecourtinCAG.R.SPNo.74610waspennedbyAssociateJustice
ArsenioJ.Magpale,withAssociateJusticesBienvenidoL.ReyesandRebeccaDeGuiaSalvadorconcurring.

[17]
Id.at435.
[18]
Id.at436.
[19]
Id.at437.
[20]
Id.at448461.Thisisrespondentssecondmotiontodischargetheattachment.
[21]
Id.at451453.
[22]
Id.at453455.
[23]
Id.at508510.
[24]
Id.at511.
[25]
Supranote1.
[26]
Supranote10.
[27]
Supranote2.
[28]
Rollo,pp.1718.
[29]
Id.at661685.

[30]
SeePhilippineNationalConstructionCorporationv.Dy,G.R.No.156887,October3,2005,472SCRA1,912.
[31]
SpousesGodinezv.Hon.Alano,362Phil.597,609(1999).
[32]
G.R.No.104405,May13,1993,222SCRA37.
[33]
Id.at45.
[34]
Rollo,pp.377383.
[35]
JardineManilaFinance,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.55272,April10,1989,171SCRA636,645.
[36]
SeePhilippineBankofCommunicationsv.CourtofAppeals,405Phil.271,280(2001).
[37]
SeePCLIndustriesManufacturingCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.147970,March31,2006,486SCRA214,222226.
[38]
Tingv.Villarin,G.R.No.61754,August17,1989,176SCRA532,535.
[39]
Benitezv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,No.L71535,September15,1987,154SCRA41,46.
[40]
SolidbankCorporationv.MindanaoFerroalloyCorporation,G.R.No.153535,July28,2005,464SCRA409,424425.
[41]
Benitezv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,supranote39,at48.
[42]
D.P.LubOilMarketingCenter,Inc.v.Nicolas,G.R.No.76113,November16,1990,191SCRA423,428.
[43]
PhilippineBankofCommunicationsv.CourtofAppeals,supranote36,at282.
[44]
Benitezv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,supranote39,at48.

[45]
98Phil.886(1956)seeChuidianv.Sandiganbayan,402Phil.795,816(2001)seealsoFCYConstructionGroup,Inc.v.Courtof
Appeals,381Phil.282(2000).
[46]
Id.at891.
[47]
SeeVillongco,etal.v.Panlilioetc.,etal.,94Phil.15(1953).
[48]
CArollo,p.341.