Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > June 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 175228 : June 13, 2012] ALFREDO M. ABIERTAS v. JOSE C. LATORRE :




THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 175228 : June 13, 2012]

ALFREDO M. ABIERTAS v. JOSE C. LATORRE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 June 2012, which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 175228 (Alfredo M. Abiertas v. Jose C. Latorre)

RESOLUTION 

This Petition[1] for review on certiorari assails the March 24, 2006 Decision[2] and October 10, 2006 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. C.V. No. 67711, which reversed and set aside the Decision[4] dated May 10, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catbalogan, Samar, Branch 27, and rendered a new judgment directing the respondent, as owner of the encroached portion, to exercise his options under Article 448 of the Civil Code within thirty (30) days from finality of the decision.

The Factual Antecedents 

The parties are adjoining lot owners at Block 17, Kalachuchi St., Mu�oz Estate, Catbalogan, Samar. Respondent Jose C. Latorre (Latorre) is the owner of Lot 3 covered by TCT No. T-3511 while petitioner Alfredo M. Abiertas (Abiertas) owns Lot 2 covered by TCT No. T-6503. Lot 1 is allegedly owned by Arsenio Labagala while Lot 4 is purportedly owned by a certain Cabigon.

On October 6, 1992, respondent Latorre filed before the RTC a complaint to recover possession of about 80 square meter (sq.m.) portion of land allegedly encroached upon by petitioner Abiertas through strategy or stealth when he constructed a house extension in 1987. He initially protested such encroachment which was ignored. Subsequently, after confirming the same through a relocation survey,[5]  he made demands to vacate which were refused.

On the other hand, petitioner Abiertas claimed to have built the improvements on his Lot 2. Its boundaries, prior to the purchase, were pointed out by respondent Latorre and by a representative of the National Housing Authority (NHA). He likewise averred that he acquired Lot 2 on the prodding of respondent and his wife, Antonia, who even signed as a witness to the deed assigning to him the right to purchase the said lot from the NHA. Hence, the instant action is barred by estoppel, laches and prescription.

Petitioner Abiertas subsequently filed a third-party complaint against the NHA which prayed for its dismissal grounded on the pendency of a case involving the same issues between them. He likewise sought to implead Arsenio Labagala (Labagala), the owner of the adjoining Lot 1, who he claimed would have similarly encroached a portion of his Lot 2 and be accordingly held liable, should respondent Latorre's survey plan be found correct.

The RTC Ruling 

After due proceedings, the RTC rendered the Decision[6] dated May 10, 2000 finding petitioner Abiertas to have encroached upon a 76 sq.m. portion of respondent Latorre's land based on the Relocation Sketch Plan[7] executed by the latter's geodetic engineer. While the court found the encroachment to have arisen from his "honest belief� that he erected his improvements on the area covered by his title, it ordered him to vacate and remove all his improvements therefrom, and to pay monthly rentals from receipt of the summons on October 12, 1992 until he shall have complied with the court's directive. On the other hand, the third-party complaint was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit.

The CA Ruling[8] 

On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the above Decision. It rejected petitioner Abiertas' claim that respondent Latorre was guilty of estoppel in pais, finding the latter to be unaware of their respective boundaries and of Abiertas' encroachment until after he had his land resurveyed. Abiertas' attempt to belatedly include Cabigon, the owner of Lot 4 adjoining Latorre's Lot 3, as party to the case was likewise rejected. With respect to the summons against third-party defendant Labagala, the CA found it to be defective for failing to specify who was served therewith. Lastly, while the CA acknowledged Abiertas' right to retain possession of the land as a builder in good faith, it declared that the option to acquire the improvements after payment of the proper indemnity or to oblige the builder to pay for the land rests with the owner of the land, respondent Latorre.

In the instant petition for review, petitioner contends that respondent's alleged representation of the boundaries of their respective lots and his failure to object to the introduction of improvements over the encroached portion of his lot renders him guilty of estoppel in pais; that third-party defendant Labagala, the adjoining owner of Lot 1 who similarly encroached a portion of his Lot 2, is an indispensable party and was validly served with summons contrary to the CA's finding; that Cabigon, the owner of Lot 4 who similarly encroached respondent's Lot 3, is likewise an indispensable party whose inclusion in the suit is necessary in order to afford effective, complete or equitable relief to the parties already before the court.

The Court's Ruling 

After a careful review of the records of the case, We find no reversible error in the assailed CA Decision as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.

As correctly held by the CA, estoppel cannot be invoked against respondent Latorre for his alleged representation of the boundaries of the subject two (2) lots as well as his failure to object to the introduction of improvements over the encroached portion of his lot, having become aware of the actual metes and bounds of his property and of petitioner Abiertas' encroachment only when he had his land resurveyed. Settled is the rule that unless one is knowledgeable in the science of surveying, "no one can determine the precise extent or location of his property by merely examining his paper title."[9]

However, contrary to the CA's finding, jurisdiction over the person of third-party defendant Labagala was acquired. We have reviewed the Officer's Return of Service[10]  and found it sufficient to establish that he had been duly served with summons. The said return of service expressly states: 

"Respectfully returned to the Honorable Court, Regional Trial Court Branch 27, Catbalogan, Samar, the herein Summons (for Arsenio Labagala) in Civil Case No. 6595, entitled "DR. JOSE LATORRE versus ENGR. ALFREDO ABIERTAS and ENGR. ALFREDO ABIERTAS versus NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ARSENIO LABAGALA, with the information that the same has been duly served on January 15, 1997, whose signature appears below."[11] (parenthetical notation ours)

On the bottom of the page of the return appears the signature of Labagala. It bears stressing that a process server's certificate of service is prima facie evidence of the facts set out therein based on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed which stands in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary,[12] as in this case.

Nonetheless, the dismissal of the third-party complaint was in order for failure of petitioner Abiertas to sufficiently show that he is entitled to a right of contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or other substantive right from Labagala in respect of respondent Latorre's claim.[13] An action for contribution essentially entails a common liability for the payment of damage suffered. On the other hand, the claim for indemnity arises from the same transaction on which the plaintiffs claim is based or from one connected therewith although arising from different transaction. In short, there must be a causal connection  between plaintiffs claim in his complaint and defendant's claim for contribution, indemnity or other relief against the third-party defendant.[14] 

In the present case, the averred liability of third-party defendant Labagala to petitioner Abiertas is not dependent on the outcome of the case between the latter and respondent Latorre, which may be completely resolved without impleading third parties. Corollarily, the Court cannot sustain petitioner's claim that Labagala and Cabigon, owners of adjoining Lots 1 and 4, respectively, should be impleaded as indispensable parties.

Finally, considering the concurring findings of the RTC and the CA that petitioner was a builder in good faith, the records of the case must accordingly be remanded to the court a quo for the exercise of the rights and obligations of the parties under Article 448[15] of the Civil Code in relation to Article 546[16] of the same Code. cralaw

WHEREFORE, the assailed March 24, 2006 Decision and October 10, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.V. No. 67711 are hereby AFFIRMED. The records of the case are hereby remanded to the court a quo for the proper application of Article 448 in relation to Article 546 of the Civil Code. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 1228 dated June 6, 2012; Villarama, Jr., J., Acting Member, in lieu of Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 1229 dated June 6, 2012.)

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] SC Rollo, pp. 10-27.

[2] Id. at 28-36. Penned by Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and concurred by Justices Enrico A. Lanzanas and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. 

[3] Id. at 42-43. 

[4] CA Rollo, pp. 21-26. 

[5] RTC Folder of Exhibits, p. 9. 

[6] Supra at note 4. 

[7] Supra at note 5. 

[8] Decision dated March 24, 2006: Supra at note 2. 

[9] Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals (Former Special Seventeenth Division), G.R. No. 108894, February 10, 1997, 268 SCRA 5, 15. 

[10] RTC Records, reverse portion of page 82. 

[11] Ibid. 

[12] Vide Sansio Philippines, Inc. v. Mogol, Jr., G.R. No. 177007, July 14, 2009, 592 SCRA 652; Velayo-Fong v. Velayo, G.R. No. 155488, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 320. 

[13] Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim, G.R. Nos. 174168 & 179438, March 30, 2009, 582 SCRA 517, 543. 

[14] Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160242. May 17, 2005, 458 SCRA 750. 

[15] ART. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. 

[16] ART. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor. 

Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason thereof.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.C. No. 7565 : June 13, 2012] MILA C. ARCHE v. ATTY. SOFRONIO CLAVECILLA, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 195193 : June 13, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS JUANITO METRE, JR. A.K.A. "LUCIO", APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190316 : June 13, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ZALDY C. RAFER @ SALVADOR RAFER, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 195427 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF APPELLEE, VERSUS REMEDIOS CAPULE Y MADAYAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181427 : June 13, 2012] JOMIL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. SPOUSES GLORIA AND JULIAN C. CARGULLO

  • [G.R. No. 171243 : June 13, 2012] SPOUSES ISAGANI CASTRO AND DIOSDADA CASTRO v. CONCORDIA BARTOLOME AND VICTORIA BARTOLOME

  • [G.R. No. 195775 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARITES ROBLES Y LARIOS

  • [G.R. No. 195526 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO ALBURO AND MICHAEL CARVAJAL ACCUSED; ROLANDO ALBURO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 199206 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OMAR WANDAY Y AMPASO

  • [G.R. No. 192548 : June 13, 2012] ANTONIO T. CHU v. SPOUSES ALFRED & LAUREANA ESTOE, FELIX GRAVIDEZ, ALFREDO GRAVIDEZ, ANGELO VIOLENA, ARACELI SORIA AND FRANCISCO CALONGE

  • [G.R. No. 175228 : June 13, 2012] ALFREDO M. ABIERTAS v. JOSE C. LATORRE

  • [G.R. No. 172899 : June 13, 2012] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF ZACARIAS ALICANDO, REPRESENTED BY BERNARDINA ALICANDO, ADMINISTRATOR

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2870 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3235-P) : June 13, 2012] PRESTIDIO HAIR SALON CO., REPRESENTED BY MARITA L. ESTABALAYA v. EFREN P. LUNA, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 37, QUEZON CITY.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-12-2315 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3309-RTJ) : June 13, 2012] ALAN F. PAGUIA v. JUDGE LEOPOLDO MARIO P. LEGAZPI, PRESIDING JUDGE, ALEXANDER A. RIVERA, CLERK OF COURT, AND MA. THERESA V. RODRIGUEZ, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 49, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 199398 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GEORGE VELO Y BALBAS

  • [G.R. No. 199220 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ISMAIL DALAMBAN MAGDATU

  • [G.R. No. 175016 : June 13, 2012] BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • [G.R. No. 189103 : June 13, 2012] PRIMITIVO R. DOMINGO, JR., TERESA D. SANDERS, DANILO R. DOMINGO, IRENEO R. DOMINGO, ROSARIO DOMINGO-LACSON, LORETA DOMINGO-PANIS, MARY ANN R. DOMINGO, AMADOR R. DOMINGO, LYDIA T. DOMINGO, MICHELLE D. DETITA, SERGIO T. DOMINGO, JR. AND JENNILYN T. DOMINGO v. ARNULFO MANZON, AMELIA MANZON-PANGANIBAN, ORLANDO MANZON, ADORACION MANZON-PESTANO, MILAGROS MANZON-TOLENTINO, RIZALINA MANZON-MARZAN, QUIRINO MANZON, FELICISIMA MANZON-SANTIAGO AND BENITA MANZON-TINIO

  • [G.R. No. 181609 : June 13, 2012] ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • [G.R. No. 201412 : June 13, 2012] HENRY DEMANDACO v. FRAILENE A. DEMANDACO AND MELBA D. LEGASA

  • [G.R. No. 181609 : June 13, 2012] ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • [G.R. No. 201412 : June 13, 2012] HENRY DEMANDACO v. FRAILENE A. DEMANDACO AND MELBA D. LEGASA

  • [G.R. No. 198790 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JONIE ORCALES Y LANAGA

  • [G.R. No. 166461 : June 13, 2012] HEIRS OF LORENZO AND CARMEN VIDAD AND AGVID CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 188850 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO MONTES Y CABONILAS

  • [G.R. No. 182524 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO PINEDA Y BORJA

  • [G.R. No. 196008 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM Y MALIGA

  • [G.R. No. 194462 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILFREDO FAUSTINO Y MENDOZA

  • [G.R. No. 198017 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL RAMOS Y CARBONEL ALIAS "ENGOL"

  • [G.R. No. 199101 : June 13, 2012] MA. REGINA DELARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES MERLYN S. UY AND GOHOC P. UY

  • [G.R. No. 189947 : June 13, 2012] MANILA PAVILION HOTEL, OWNED AND OPERATED BY ACESITE (PHILS.) HOTEL CORPORATION V. HENRY DELADA

  • [G.R. No. 200569 : June 13, 2012] PACIFICO MENDIGO Y GALLENO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 199068 : June 13, 2012] LAUREANA P. BORRES v. SISTER ANGELINA M. FERNANDO

  • [G.R. No. 194070 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJAMIN GALICIA Y ROBLAS

  • [G.R. No. 188726 : June 18, 2012] CRESENCIO C. MILLA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARKET PURSUITS, INC. REPRESENTED BY CARLO V. LOPEZ.

  • [G.R. No. 192085 : June 18, 2012] CARIDAD SEGARRA SAZON v. LETECIA VASQUEZ-MENANCIO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EDGAR S. SEGARRA.

  • [UDK-14595 : June 18, 2012] LOLITO BORJA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ELIZABETH L. URBANO.

  • [G.R. No. 196971 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LOURDES AGAPOR Y AZUELA, A.K.A. "ODETTE".

  • [G.R. No. 196985 : June 18, 2012] ALEXANDER G. CASTRO, PETITIONER, VERSUS GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) AND HONORABLE ROBERT VERGARA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF GSIS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 201183 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIANO BERSABE

  • [A.C. No. 8178 : June 18, 2012] NAPOLEON CHIU v. ATTY. ALAN A. LEYNES

  • [A.M. No. 11-8-151-RTC : June 19, 2012] RE: BURNING OF THE HALL OF JUSTICE, IPIL, ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY

  • [A.M. No. 14265-Ret. : June 19, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE ERNESTO D. MERCADO, RTC, BRANCH 3, BATANGAS CITY; JUDGE SIMON D. ENCINAS, RTC, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY; JUDGE PORFIRIO A. PARIAN, RTC, BRANCH 33, ILOILO CITY; JUDGE SANTIAGO F. BAUTISTA, JR., MTCC, SAN JOSE CITY, NUEVA ECIJA; AND JUDGE PEDRO R. SUYAT, MCTC, NATIVIDAD, PANGASINAN

  • [A.M. No. P-04-1924 : June 19, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA, ET AL; FLAVIANO D. BALGOS, JR., ET AL. VS. JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. 14297- Ret. : June 19, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF MRS. NORA L. HERRERA, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. MANUEL C. HERRERA, FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [A.C. No. 3375 : June 20, 2012] FEDENCIO BALICOLON v. ATTY. LAWRENCE CORDOVA

  • [G.R. No. 170046 : June 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAXIMO A. BORJE, JR., ET AL.

  • [A.C. No. 6998 : June 20, 2012] CLARITA O. SANTIANO v. ATTY. TEODULO PUNZALAN.

  • [G.R. No. 192904 : June 20, 2012] ELADIA LIMBO v. ELIZABETH MYRNA AGRIPA-MANEGDEG, IN HER CAPACITY AS SURVIVING HEIR AND AS SUBSTITUTE FOR DECEASED SPS. MARCELO AGRIPA AND LYDIA AGRIPA.

  • [G.R. No. 201560 : June 20, 2012] DR. JOSE CESAR CABRERA v. AMECO CONTRACTORS RENTAL, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 200939 : June 25, 2012] SPOUSES CARMELO, JR. AND ELIZABETH AFRICA, PETITIONERS, VERSUS BANK OF COMMERCE, THE PURPORTED TRANSFEREE OF TRADERS ROYAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6332 : June 26, 2012] RE: SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED APRIL 28, 2003 IN G.R. NO. 145817 AND G.R. NO. 145822 (ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA, RESPONDENT)

  • [G.R. No. 139472 : June 26, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DELFIN S. RODRIGO

  • [A.M. No. 12-6-110-RTC : June 26, 2012] RE: REQUEST OF CLERK OF COURT CLARENCE G. CHERREGUINE, RTC, BRANCH 42, BALANGIGA, EASTERN SAMAR, TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL FOR HIS FATHER

  • [A.M. No. 12-5-89-RTC : June 26, 2012] RE: QUERY OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE JOCELYN SUNDIANG DILIG, RTC, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, AS TO WHO MAY RESOLVE THE PETITION FOR RENEWAL OF THE NOTARIAL COMMISSION OF ATTY. CONRADO B. LAGMAN AND THE OPPOSITION THERETO

  • [G.R. No. 196530 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISITO TULANG Y LLANITA, A.K.A "LOUIE"

  • [G.R. No. 175779 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGINIA MENDOZA Y ARBO @ CRIS

  • [G.R. No. 181323 : June 27, 2012] LILIAN MANTO AND EMMANUEL FAUSTINA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 199493 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMIE ASPACIO Y MAYOLA

  • [G.R. No. 196490 : June 27, 2012] LEONARDO IGOT v. BANCO SAN JUAN

  • [G.R. No. 188778 : June 27, 2012] ANTONIO HERMANO v. OCTAVIO ALVAREZ, JR., LEONORA CASTRO-BATAC, GILBERTO C. CASTRO, JR., MANUEL C. CASTRO, CONSUELO CASTRO-CASTRO, JAKE CASTRO, MA. ELISA CASTRO-VILLANUEVA AND ROSELINO CASTRO

  • [G.R. No. 192817 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGELITO MALABANAN Y ANAHAN

  • [G.R. No. 185165 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE MACAWILI Y PALLER.

  • [G.R. No. 182210 : June 27, 2012] PAZ T. BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 179902 : June 27, 2012] METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. RODOLFO PASCUAL, SR. & RODOLFO PASCUAL, JR.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-07-1687 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 99-830-MTJ) : June 27, 2012] DOMINGO B. PANTIG v. JUDGE PASCUALA CLEOFE G. CANLAS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT [MTC], SASMUAN, PAMPANGA.