Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > November 1982 Decisions > A.M. No. P-1935 November 19, 1982 - BENJAMIN DAAG v. HONORIO SERRANO

204 Phil. 9:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-1935. November 19, 1982.]

BENJAMIN DAAG, Complainant, v. HONORIO SERRANO, Respondent.

Ponciano N. Mercado for complainant.

Honorio Serrano in his own behalf.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent municipal court clerk-stenographer was administratively charged with dishonesty for allegedly keeping and refusing to return half of the P1,000.00 cash entrusted to him by complainant intended as cash bail for the latter’s employee facing criminal charges in respondent’s court. Respondent admits having received the amount and having applied only half to the purpose for which the money was entrusted. He alleges, however, that he had tried to pay the amount in installments but the offer was rejected.

The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of dishonesty and dismissed him from office with prejudice to reinstatement and forfeiture of benefits.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT; FORMAL INVESTIGATION MAY BE DISPENSED WITH WHERE PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PROVIDE AMPLE BASIS FOR RESOLUTION OF THE CHARGES; CASE AT BAR. — Cumbersome time-consuming procedure of investigation need not be resorted to if the allegations in the complaint, the comments thereon and the documents presented provide ample basis for a resolution of complainant’s charges. (Sta. Maria v. Ubay. Adm. Matter 595-CFI, December 11, 1978, 87 SCRA 179)

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ACT OF DISHONESTY BY A COURT PERSONNEL. — Where respondent municipal court clerk-stenographer had admitted having received P1,000.00 from the complainant and having applied only P500.00 to the purpose for which the money was entrusted, there is no question that the respondent is guilty of dishonesty. The respondent’s efforts to pay the P500.00 in installments is a clear admission that he has the money and the obligation to return it.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY. — The penalty for a court personnel found guilty of dishonesty is dismissal from office with prejudice to reinstatement and forfeiture of benefits.

4. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; BAIL BOND; PROCEDURE IN HANDLING CASH SUBMITTED OR GIVEN AS BAIL. — The proper procedure in the handling of cash submitted or given to the municipal court as bail bond is for the court to formally direct the clerk of court to officially receive the cash and to immediately deposit it with the municipal treasurer’s office. The transaction must not only be properly receipted for but should also appear in the records of the case. The gratuitous assertion of respondent municipal court clerk-stenographer that he casually entrusted the money to a clerk, without getting a receipt is not only improbable but irregular and anomalous, if true.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


Mr. Honorio Serrano, clerk-stenographer of the municipal court of Minalin, Pampanga was charged with dishonesty by Dr. Benjamin D. Daag, a fishpond owner and employer of an accused person facing charges before the respondent’s court.

The verified complaint averred inter alia:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"4. That on May 19, 1977, in the Municipal Court of Minalin, Pampanga, the respondent having introduced himself to the complainant that he is the Clerk-Stenographer I of the Municipal Court of Minalin, Pampanga, received from complainant in trust the sum of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00), in cash, for him to put up as CASH BAIL for the complainant’s fishpond watcher, DOMINGO TIMBOL, and FELIX VIRAY, a fishpond watcher of a nearby fishpond belonging to another person, who were both detained on May 15, 1977 and charged for `Less Serious Physical Injuries’ in the Municipal Court of Minalin, Pampanga with Criminal Case No. 876, entitled `PP-VS- DOMINGO TIMBOL and FELIX VIRAY’ with a recommended bail of P1,000.00 each with Motion to Reduce to P500.00 each;

"5. That on that dated May 19, 1977, Honorio Serrano informed us that the Judge of the Municipal Court of Minalin, Pampanga will come the next day, May 20, 1977 at 2:00 P.M. He promised us that if we cannot come on May 20, 1977, hearing of the Motion, dated May 19, 1977 filed by Atty. Ponciano N. Mercado, for the Reduction of the Bail of both accused from P1,000.00 each to P500.00 each, if granted, by the Honorable Court, respondents has obligation to deposit the P1,000.00 that complainant has entrusted to him for the provisional liberty of the two (2) accused.

"6. That inasmuch as the services of the two (2) accused as fishpond watchers were badly needed in the fishponds, upon request of complainant, Atty. Ponciano N. Mercado appeared in court on May 20, 1977 for the accused and they learned that the accused FELIX VIRAY was already out on bail put up by his employer, and that the Honorable Court granted the reduction of bail of the accused DOMINGO TIMBOL from P1,000.00 to P500.00. At this juncture, respondent is under obligation to put up a cash bail of P500.00 for accused Domingo Timbol only and out of the P1,000.00 that complainant has entrusted to him and to return to complainant the other P500.00;

"7. That respondent was not able to bail out the accused Domingo Timbol as respondent was, not then bringing the money and that only afterwards on May 21, 1977 and several days thereafter, complainant has been travelling from Manila to Minalin, to demand the return of the P500.00, but respondent only promised to pay the P500.00 which was never fulfilled;

"8. That despite of the many repeated verbal and written demands made, the respondent failed and refused and Still fails and refuses to return the aforesaid P500.00 to the complainant."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


Respondent Serrano admits receipt of the P1,000.00 from Dr. Daag although he claims to have entrusted the money to a clerk in the municipal treasurer’s office in Minalin, Pampanga. Of the P1,000.00, only P500.00 was applied to the bail bond of Domingo Timbol, complainant’s employee because the other accused had been bailed out by his own employer;

The respondent added in his explanation:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"That on the next hearing of the case was the time when I failed to bring the balance of P500.00 and I have only P250.00 which I was giving to Atty. Mercado which he refused to acknowledge that according to him Dr. Daag will not accept the amount;

"That in the next hearing they were already demanding me the amount of P600.00 which I even offered them to execute a power of attorney in favor of Dr. Daag to withdraw my check at the Supreme Court if I have to pay that amount and pay them in installment up to the time the amount are fully paid; and as according to them was referred to the Supreme Court but was not granted;

"That it is not true that I refuse or refuses to pay the corresponding balance of P500.00 to the complainant but could not only pay only once which amount reached to P700.00 as being demanded by the counsel, the truth of the matter I am able and willing to pay the corresponding amount only in installment basis."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


We agree with Deputy Court Administrator Romeo D. Mendoza that "since the allegations in the complaint, the comment thereon and the documents presented provide ample basis for a resolution of complainant’s charges, the formal investigation was dispensed with. Following the case of Sta. Maria v. Ubay (Adm. Matter 595-CFI, December 11, 1978, 87 SCRA 179) `cumbersome time-consuming procedure of investigation need not be resorted to if the allegations in the complaint, the comments thereon and the documents presented provide ample basis for a resolution of complainant’s charges.’"

There is no question that the respondent is guilty of dishonesty. He admits having received P1,000.00 from the complainant and having applied only P500.00 to the purpose for which the money was entrusted. The remainder is with the respondent who now alleges that his offer to pay P250.00, the only amount he had during the second hearing, was rejected; that he cannot pay the entire amount in one payment; and that the complainant’s lawyer is allegedly asking for an extra P200.00 from him.

The proper procedure in the handling of cash submitted or given to the municipal court as bail bond is for the court to formally direct the clerk of court to officially receive the cash and to immediately deposit it with the municipal treasurer’s office. The transaction must not only be properly receipted for but should also appear in the records of the case. The gratuitous assertion of respondent Serrano that he casually entrusted the money to a clerk, without getting receipt is not only improbable but irregular and anomalous, if true. The respondent’s efforts to pay the P500.00 in installments is a clear admission that he has the money and the obligation to return it.

The inability to pay P500.00 is an indication that the respondent is probably suffering from financial difficulties. However, as pointed out in the report of the Office of the Court Administrator:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘Whatever may have been respondent’s dire personal needs and those of his family cannot justify his condemnable act of misappropriation for his personal use funds collected by him in trust on behalf of the complainants as judgment creditors. His conduct constitutes gross dishonesty which renders him unfit to hold a responsible position in the judicial branch of the government and betrays the people’s faith and trust in the courts for the redress of their grievances. (Ancheta v. Hilario, 96 SCRA 62, 67).

The following citation from Abejaron v. Panes (84 SCRA 494, 498) illustrates the established rule in administrative cases involving acts of dishonesty by court personnel:cralawnad

"The conduct of respondent Panes constitutes gross dishonesty which renders him unfit to hold a responsible position in the judicial branch of the government. Not only did he misappropriate the amount received by him from the judgment debtor to the damage and prejudice of the judgment creditor, PNB, but he took advantage of the situation by securing sums of money by way of loan from the judgment debtor who was interested in delaying the execution of the judgment against him. Furthermore, his failure to levy on the property of the judgment debtor and the latter’s wife to satisfy the judgment against them constitutes a malicious nonfeasance in office.

"In Abdulwahid v. Reyes, (Adm. Matter Nos. P-902 and P-926, January 31, 1978, per Antonio, Felix J.) the Court dismissed from the service the respondent deputy sheriff for serious misconduct, and one of the acts committed by him was the misappropriation of certain amounts he received in his official capacity for which he issued only his private receipts, and which amounts he returned only after the filing of the administrative case.

"In Ganaden v. Bolasco, (Adm. Matter No. P-124 May 16, 1975, 64 SCRA 50) respondent deputy provincial sheriff Gregorio N. Bolasco received certain amounts in connection with the performance of his duties as deputy sheriff without issuing the corresponding official receipts therefor and gave only his private receipt. The Court speaking through Justice Makasiar held that respondent committed illegal exaction penalized by paragraph 2(b) of Article 213 of the Revised Penal Code for failure to issue receipts for money collected by him officially, and violation of Sec. 113 of Art. III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual. The total amount received by respondent for sheriff’s fee for service of complaint and for service of a writ of execution was P62.00. Respondent was found guilty of dishonesty or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and was ordered dismissed from the service.

"It bears repeating what this Court said in Ganaden v. Bolasco:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The acts and/or omissions of respondent are patent violation of law. They disturb the ethics of public life and vitiate the integrity of the court personnel as well as the court itself. Public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. This hardstick has been imprinted in the New Constitution under Section 1 of Article XIII which stressed that `Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees shall observe with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain accountable to the people.’ (64 SCRA 50, 53)."cralaw virtua1aw library

The fact that public attention is at present intently focussed on the implementation of judicial reforms and on the cleansing of misfits from the judiciary indicates the continued necessity for adhering to the established rule.

WHEREFORE, respondent Honorio Serrano, having been found guilty of dishonesty, is hereby dismissed from office with prejudice to reinstatement and forfeiture of benefits.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana Vasquez and Relova, JJ., concur.




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






November-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-2221 November 2, 1982 - CIPRIANO ABENOJAR v. DOMINGO LOPEZ

    203 Phil. 385

  • A.M. No. 2739-CFI November 2, 1982 - TERESITA DE CASTRO v. IGNACIO CAPULONG

    203 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-27152 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS E. TORIO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 398

  • G.R. No. L-34079 November 2, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-34517 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SlMEON GANUT

    203 Phil. 421

  • G.R. No. L-39518 November 2, 1982 - AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 436

  • G.R. No. L-44039 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO A. DATUIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 442

  • G.R. No. L-47460 November 2, 1982 - AMELIA DELEGENTE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 447

  • G.R. No. L-48196 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO BAUTISTA v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 469

  • G.R. No. L-50298 November 2, 1982 - JOSEPH Y. PUNAY v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 475

  • G.R. No. L-50358 November 2, 1982 - SHIPSIDE, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 481

  • G.R. No. L-52823 November 2, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MIDPANTAO ADIL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 492

  • G.R. No. L-53465 November 2, 1982 - ANTONIO NITURA v. JOSE C. COLAYCO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-54439 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE Of THE PHIL. v. JESUS N. MONTEZ

    203 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-55645 November 2, 1982 - RICARDO CENIZA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-56909 November 2, 1982 - FLORENCIA B. SAN VALENTIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 534

  • G.R. No. L-58578 November 2, 1982 - JOSE GEROMO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 539

  • G.R. No. L-59054 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MUSTAPA ALIBASA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 559

  • G.R. No. L-34597 November 5, 1982 - ROSITO Z. BACARRO, ET AL. v. GERUNDIO B. CASTAÑO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 563

  • G.R. No. L-36033 November 5, 1982 - IN RE: APOLONIO TABOADA v. AVELINO S. ROSAL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 572

  • G.R. No. L-61870 November 5, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTINO D. PERALTA

    203 Phil. 580

  • G.R. No. L-49004 November 10, 1982 - NG LIT v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 592

  • A.M. No. 702-CTJ November 15, 1982 - ELISA VDA. DE OCHOA, ET AL. v. GERINO M. TOLENTINO

    203 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-26325 November 15, 1982 - PACWELD STEEL CORPORATION v. ASIA STEEL CORPORATION

    203 Phil. 606

  • G.R. No. L-31366 November 15, 1982 - ASIAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ISLAND STEEL, INC., ET AL.

    203 Phil. 611

  • G.R. No. L-34834 November 15, 1982 - ARTURO H. TROCIO v. LUIS D. MANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39258 November 15, 1982 - RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT, ET AL. v. AMANTE P. PURISIMA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 625

  • G.R. No. L-42540 November 15, 1982 - VICTOR NEPOMUCENO, ET AL. v. JUAN B. MONTECILLO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 632

  • G.R. No. L-52325 November 15, 1982 - CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-53060 November 15, 1982 - ROSARIO T. MAMERTO, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 644

  • G.R. No. 55771 November 15, 1982 - TAHANAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 652

  • G.R. No. L-56479 November 15, 1982 - SOCORRO L. VDA. DE STA. ROMANA v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 708

  • G.R. Nos. L-56695-98 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIBSON A. ARAULA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 719

  • G.R. No. L-61663 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO L. REGLOS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 724

  • G.R. No. L-61997 November 15, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ELFREN PARTISALA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 750

  • A.C. No. 641 November 19, 1982 - FRANCISCO RADOMES v. FERNANDO FABRIGARAS

    204 Phil. 1

  • A.C. No. 1675 November 19, 1982 - BELEN A. RIVERA v. ORLANDO LATONERO

    204 Phil. 4

  • A.M. No. P-1935 November 19, 1982 - BENJAMIN DAAG v. HONORIO SERRANO

    204 Phil. 9

  • G.R. No. L-30690 November 19, 1982 - BF HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 15

  • G.R. No. L-30854 November 19, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 21

  • G.R. No. L-34362 November 19, 1982 - MODESTA CALIMLIM, ET AL. v. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    204 Phil.25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-35718 November 19, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 38

  • G.R. No. L-37712 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SYQUIOCO

    204 Phil. 42

  • G.R. No. L-38258 November 19, 1982 - LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN v. MARCELO ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 50

  • G.R. No. L-39503 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCRESIO CARDENAS

    204 Phil. 88

  • G.R. No. L-39528 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MONAGA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 98

  • G.R. No. L-44686 November 19, 1982 - MACARIO MANUEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 110

  • G.R. No. L-44817 November 19, 1982 - LEA PAZ TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 117

  • G.R. No. L-46729 November 19, 1982 - LAUSAN AYOG, ET AL. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49140 November 19, 1982 - QUASHA ASPERILLA ANCHETA VALMONTE PEÑA & MARCOS v. CELESTINO P. JUAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 141

  • G.R. No. L-54158 November 19, 1982 - PAGASA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 162

  • G.R. No. L-55079 November 19, 1982 - METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY v. FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 172

  • G.R. No. L-55539 November 19, 1982 - DIOSA DE LEON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 180

  • G.R. No. L-55624 November 19, 1982 - BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 194

  • G.R. No. L-56761 November 19, 1982 - MARIANO TOLEDO, ET AL. v. BERNARDO P. PARDO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 203

  • G.R. No. L-57170 November 19, 1982 - KO BU LIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 211

  • G.R. No. L-57440 November 19, 1982 - D. D. COMENDADOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARCELINO N. SAYO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 227

  • G.R. Nos. L-57477-78 November 19, 1982 - HEIRS OF WILLIAM SEVILLA, ET AL. v. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 237

  • G.R. No. L-57707 November 19, 1982 - PHILEX MINING CORPORATION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 241

  • G.R. No. L-58506 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 247

  • G.R. No. L-59463 November 19, 1982 - PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA v. IMPERIAL MINING COMPANY, INC.

    204 Phil. 262

  • G.R. No. L-59596 November 19, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 268

  • G.R. No. L-60950 November 19, 1982 - J.D. MAGPAYO CUSTOMS BROKERAGE CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 276

  • A.M. No. P-292 November 25, 1982 - ISIDRO G. ARENAS v. MANUEL RESULTAN, SR.

    204 Phil. 279

  • A.C. No. 2662-CFI November 26, 1982 - FLAVIANO A. PELMOKA v. FELIX T. DIAZ, JR.

    204 Phil. 283

  • G.R. No. L-30391 November 25, 1982 - ASSOCIATED SUGAR, INC., ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 289

  • G.R. No. L-35630 November 25, 1982 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. GALAURAN & PILARES CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 296

  • G.R. No. L-35757 November 25, 1982 - LUCIA LUSUNG v. SUSANA VDA. DE SANTOS

    204 Phil. 302

  • G.R. No. L-36364 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO DASCIL, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 309

  • G.R. No. L-38423 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL PIMENTEL

    204 Phil. 327

  • G.R. No. L-38449 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR MANZANO

    204 Phil. 339

  • G.R. No. L-50548 November 25, 1982 - CONCHING ALVARO, ET AL. v. HOSPICIO ZAPATA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 356

  • G.R. No. L-56025 November 25, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO M. GONONG, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 364

  • G.R. Nos. L-56224-26 November 25, 1982 - PURISIMA GESTOSO CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 372

  • G.R. Nos. L-61067-68 November 25, 1982 - MITSUI & CO., LTD. v. MANUEL G. ABELLO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 384

  • G.R. No. L-33724 November 29, 1982 - ELIGIA BATBATAN. v. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PAGADIAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 379