Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > November 1998 Decisions > A.M. No. P-99-1315 November 3, 1998 - JESUSA MANINGAS, ET AL. v. CARLITO C. BARCENAS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. P-99-1315. November 3, 1999.]

(Formerly OCA IPI No. 99-600-P)

ATTY. JESUSA MANINGAS and ATTY. JENNIFER C. BUENDIA, Complainants, v. CARLITO C. BARCENAS, Respondent.


R E S O L U T I O N


PER CURIAM:


In their Joint Affidavit-Complaint dated 8 June 1998 and filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), complainants Clerk of Court Jesusa P. Maningas and Assistant Clerk of Court Jennifer C. Buendia, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, charged respondent Carlito C. Barcenas, Court Stenographer III of Branch 26 of said court, with grave misconduct, insubordination, and conduct unbecoming of a government employee.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Complainants alleged that on 8 June 1998 at about 12:50 p.m., while they were having lunch together with Mrs. Racquel Bajar inside the office of complainant Maningas, they heard heavy knockings at, and banging and kicking on, the door of the office. Complainant Buendia stood up to ascertain the identity of the person doing so; and she found out that it was respondent Carlito Barcenas, who was then detailed in the office of Atty. Maningas. When Atty. Maningas learned who the culprit was, she told Atty. Buendia not to open the door, as Barcenas appeared to be drunk. She then instructed Atty. Buendia and Mrs. Bajar to move to the other side of the room where Atty. Buendia was holding office, as the office janitor might be able to help them just in case anything would happen.

Suddenly, respondent rushed into the room of Atty. Maningas and shouted at the complainants: "Bakit ayaw mong pirmahan ang time card ko? Sabihin mo kung bakit!" Atty. Buendia answered: "Bakit wala ba kaming karapatan na i-hold ang pagpirma ng card mo? We have orders from Judge Loja to verify carefully your time record before we sign it." But respondent, shouting again, answered back: "Anong order? Nasaan ang order? Ipakita mo sa akin ang order. Pag hindi n’yo pinirmahan iyan, ipapatay ko kayo, madali lang magpapatay."cralaw virtua1aw library

Atty. Maningas told respondent not to shout and advised him to discuss the issue with her when he was no longer drunk; but respondent continued with his threatening remarks. When told that if he persisted in his actuation he might be charged with insubordination, respondent shouted back at Atty. Maningas: "Putang ina mo, huwag mong pirmahan ‘yan at tingnan natin, ipapatay ko kayong lahat." Atty. Maningas then instructed a certain Mr. Lacaba to call for some sheriffs in the other room to prevent respondent from inflicting harm upon her and Atty. Buendia. Meantime, Mr. Greg Faraon, the Administrative Officer, succeeded in pacifying respondent and led the latter out of Atty. Maningas’ room. Atty. Maningas then instructed Sheriff Reyala to take respondent to the office of the Executive Judge. Upon hearing the instruction, respondent uttered to her the following words: "Sige, sige at nang ipayari kita, babawi ako, madali kitang ipayari."cralaw virtua1aw library

The OCA docketed the complaint as OCA IPI No. 99-600-P and indorsed it to Executive Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr., of the RTC of Manila for investigation and report. The latter had the case docketed as Adm. Case No. 98-001.

In his Report and Recommendation dated 27 February 1999, Executive Judge Savellano found as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Respondent’s conduct was repulsive from the very beginning.

x       x       x


Respondent, a subordinate who [was] merely on detail in the Office of the Clerk of Court, Atty. Maningas, whom he slandered and threatened, evidently committed grave misconduct if not insubordination and serious disrespect against his superiors.

In his testimony, as well as in his Memorandum, dated September 14, 1998, respondent Carlito Barcenas admits the incident on June 8, 1998. It is significant to point out that in his Memorandum, Barcenas admits having knocked several times on the door of Atty. Maningas’ room and when no one responded he knocked harder; that he saw the complainants transfer to the other room of Atty. Buendia, the door of which was open; that the respondent admits that he asked Atty. Buendia inside her room "Bakit ayaw mong pirmahan ang time card ko?" and that Atty. Buendia answered him "Wala kang magagawa kung gusto namin i-hold ang pagpirma ng time card mo dahil may karapatan kaming i-hold ang kard mo. We have orders from Judge Loja to verify your time record before we sign it." Indeed, it was truly Atty. Buendia’s obligation to take some time in examining the entries in the time records of respondent Barcenas in the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the aforequoted Exhibits H, G, I, A and B which she was aware of, as the Office of the Clerk of Court was furnished with copies thereof, and for which Barcenas was, in fact, temporarily detailed thereat for the reasons mentioned in said exhibits. Respondent Barcenas also admits that he "did not use respectful language at the time he saw Atty. Buendia," and the reason why he "failed to use courteous language at that time was the fact that respondent had already submitted the same (DTR) to Atty. Buendia since June 2, 1998." His defense is that Atty. Buendia had not released his daily time records for the month of May, 1998, which he submitted on June 2, 1998. Be that as I may, it was respondent’s obligation to approach his superiors, Attys. Maningas and Buendia, with utmost respect and courtesy but, on the contrary, respondent behaved in a repulsive and abnormal manner. Before approaching them, he first got drunk, and then, with belligerence, he repeatedly knocked and kicked loudly and with increasing intensity the door of Atty. Maningas’ room, clearly betraying his impatience and anger, so that, apparently, he was not in a sound condition for a peaceful and dispassionate confrontation with Attys. Maningas and Buendia. His conduct or behavior revealed that of a bully trying to intimidate and threaten his two (2) lady superiors into complying immediately with what he wanted.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Respondent was drunk at the time of the incident.

The evidence is overwhelming that respondent was drunk at the time he tried to break into the office of Atty. Maningas and threatened Atty. Buendia, saying: "Putang ina mo pag hindi finirmahan yan kaya ko kayong ipapatay." (Testimony of Greg Faraon, Hearing of Aug. 10, 1998). Gregorio Faraon who tried to hold back the respondent and was almost in body contact with him, saw that the respondent was red in the face and smelled of liquor. Atty. Buendia to whom Barcenas pointed his finger at a distance of about two (2) to three (3) inches as he threw invectives and threatened to have her killed if she did not sign her DTR, also testified that Barcenas was drunk and smelled of liquor (Hearing of August 6, 1998). Respondent Barcenas also appear[ed] to be in the habit of drinking liquor even during office hours and has been repeatedly warned not to repeat the same, but, he . . . ignored the warnings. (See Exh. G).

Respondent violated the Rule of Law.

It need not be stressed that we live under a rule of law. If the respondent believed that his rights were violated by Attys. Maningas and Buendia, he should have gone directly to the Office of Honorable Court Administrator to air his grievances, file his complaint thereat or ask for help or assistance from the Court Administrator. Instead, he took the law into his hands, resulting in the adverse consequences which he now faces.

A government employee is expected to give due courtesy and respect to his superiors, maintain good conduct and behavior at all times, follow the rule of law and not law of the jungle, otherwise, he forfeits his revered place or position in the government service. Respondent Barcenas clearly violated those rules of conduct. (See Section 23, Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 297).

It further appears from the Report and Recommendation of Judge Savellano that prior to the incident subject of the complaint in this case, respondent had been repeatedly warned against his absenteeism, tardiness, habitual drunkenness during office hours, loafing, and deliberate disobedience to orders of the court below to transcribe the stenographic notes on various cases already submitted for decision. Then on 26 January 1998, Executive Judge Savellano detailed respondent in the Office of the Clerk of Court to enable him to transcribe and submit the pending stenographic notes.

Judge Savellano then recommended that respondent be dismissed from the service.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

In its Memorandum of 20 April 1999, the OCA concurs with the findings and recommendation of Executive Judge Savellano. It stresses that a government employee is expected to give due courtesy and respect to his superiors, maintain good conduct and behavior at all times, and follow the rule of the law and not the law of the jungle; otherwise, he forfeits his revered place or position in the government service. It then recommends that the case be re-docketed as an administrative matter and respondent Carlito C. Barcenas be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to his reemployment in any branch of the government, including government-owned or -controlled corporations.

We then directed that the case be docketed as a regular administrative matter, as now indicated in the caption of this case.

We agree with the investigating judge and the OCA that respondent should be dismissed from the service. We see in his acts not just failure to give due courtesy and respect to his superiors or to maintain good conduct and behavior, but defiance of the basic norms or virtues which a government employee must at all times uphold. Undoubtedly, respondent was drunk at the time the incident in question occurred; he has not refuted the report of his drunkenness in the past. He was wanting in dedication and devotion to duty and in fidelity in the observance of the elementary rules on absenteeism. He remained unreconstructed despite the warnings given by his superiors. As a matter of fact, the incident in question exposed respondent’s open defiance to attempts to lead him to the path of duty and righteousness. He had shown a habit, an attitude and a frame of mind which render him unfit to remain in the service. The acts proven constituted beyond reasonable doubt grave misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

We repeat what we said in Sy v. Academia (198 SCRA 705 [1991]) that we condemn and would never countenance any conduct, act, or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. Every one connected in the task of delivery of justice, from the lowliest employee to the highest official, must at all times be fully aware of the sacramental nature of their function.

WHEREFORE, for drunkenness, insubordination, grave misconduct, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, respondent CARLITO C. BARCENAS is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or -controlled corporations.

This Resolution shall take effect upon service thereof on respondent, and the Clerk of Court shall cause such service immediately upon the promulgation of this Resolution.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Puno, Quisumbing and Santiago, JJ., on official leave.




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-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-99-1315 November 3, 1998 - JESUSA MANINGAS, ET AL. v. CARLITO C. BARCENAS

  • G.R. No. 136448 November 3, 1998 - LIM TONG LIM v. PHIL. FISHING GEAR INDUSTRIES

  • G.R. No. 137136 November 3, 1998 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES v. CAMILLE T. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135913 November 4, 1998 - VICTORIANO B. TIROL v. CIPRIANO A. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1425 November 16, 1998 - DOMINGO G. PANGANIBAN v. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1504 November 16, 1998 - ANG KEK CHEN v. AMALIA R. ANDRADE

  • G.R. No. 106593 November 16, 1998 - NAT’L HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MAURO T. ALLARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106795 November 16, 1998 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113638 November 16, 1998 - A. D. GOTHONG MANUFACTURING CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU v. NIEVES CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115180 November 16, 1998 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123045 November 16, 1998 - DEMETRIO R. TECSON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123686 November 16, 1998 - APOLINARIO MELO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124166 November 16, 1998 - BENGUET CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125814-15 November 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON PATALINGHUG

  • G.R. No. 126332 November 16, 1998 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 128361 November 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROY "SONNY" GALLO

  • G.R. No. 128452 November 16, 1998 - COMPANIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128957 November 16, 1998 - ANTONIO PARE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131235 November 16, 1998 - UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU) v. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR.

  • G.R. No. 131777 November 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINDA ARIOLA

  • G.R. No. 132497 November 16, 1998 - LUIS MIGUEL YSMAEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5170 November 17, 1998 - LILIA FERRER TUCAY v. MANUEL R. TUCAY

  • ADM. MATTER No. RTJ-95-1324 November 17, 1998 - EVARISTO MANAHON v. ALVIN I. TAN

  • G.R. No. 123152 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO LASOLA

  • G.R. No. 129169 November 17, 1998 - NIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129256 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL PINCA

  • G.R. No. 130591 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELO LACABA

  • G.R. No. 130607 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUSTICO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 131499 November 17, 1998 - HERMIE M. HERRERA, ET AL. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. Nos. 132216 & 133479 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR TORIO

  • G.R. No. 132238 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO BAYGAR

  • G.R. No. 133148 November 17, 1998 - J.R. BLANCO v. WILLIAM H. QUASHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134467 November 17, 1998 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEV’T. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.M. No. P-99-1326 November 18, 1998 - MARIVIC T. BALISI-UMALI v. SIXTO A. PEÑALOSA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1338 November 18, 1998 - ESTELA P. VALLES v. NILA ARZAGA-QUIJANO

  • G.R. No. 103476 November 18, 1998 - CODIDI MATA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 106531 November 18, 1998 - FERNANDO GARCIA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109371 November 18, 1998 - JOSE GAUDIA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122240 November 18, 1998 - CRISTONICO B. LEGAHI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127167 November 18, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL

  • A.M. No. P-94-1080, P-95-1128 & P-95-1144 November 19, 1998 - DINAH CHRISTINA A. AMANE, ET AL. v. SUSAN MENDOZA-ARCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110048 November 19, 1998 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114198 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO BALUDDA

  • G.R. No. 114508 November 19, 1998 - PRIBHDAS J. MIRPURI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115412 November 19, 1998 - HOME BANKERS SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126932 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUA GALLADAN

  • G.R. No. 127768 November 19, 1998 - UNITED AIRLINES v. WILLIE J. UY

  • G.R. No. 128797 November 19, 1998 - FIRST NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129096 November 19, 1998 - MARIVIC ZARATE v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129732 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO BASCO

  • G.R. No. 130772 November 19, 1998 - WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES v. NLRC, Et. Al.

  • G.R. No. 130922 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO REQUIZ

  • G.R. No. 131479 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO GASPAR

  • G.R. No. 131732 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON CATAMPONGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132474 November 19, 1998 - RENATO CENIDO v. AMADEO APACIONADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132644 November 19, 1998 - ERNESTO DAVID, ET AL. v. CRISTITO MALAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134685 November 19, 1998 - MARIA ANTONIA SIGUAN v. ROSA LIM

  • A.M. No. P-94-1076 November 22, 1998 - ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO v. JAMESWELL M. RESUS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1341 November 22, 1998 - JULITO BIAG v. LUALHATI GUBATANGA

  • G.R. No. 97914 November 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL BROMO

  • G.R. No. 122279 November 22, 1998 - C & A CONSTRUCTION CO. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127566 November 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULALIO PADIL

  • G.R. No. 135562 November 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO BRAVO

  • Administrative Case No. 5169 November 24, 1998 - ELMO S. MOTON v. RAYMUNDO D. CADIAO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1351 November 24, 1998 - RENATO G. CUNANAN v. ARTURO C. FLORES

  • G.R. No. 66508 November 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO SIOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102648 November 24, 1998 - DRS. ALENDRY and FLORA P. CAVILES v. EVELYN and RAMON T. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 110559 November 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SABAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111854 November 24, 1998 - BARANGAY BLUE RIDGE "A" OF QUEZON CITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114671 November 24, 1998 - AURELIO SALINAS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119492 November 24, 1998 - ROLANDO MALINAO, ET AL. v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 122006 November 24, 1998 - ALLIED INVESTIGATION BUREAU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 132748 November 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO PATRIARCA

  • G.R. No. 135864 November 24, 1998 - AUGUSTO TOLEDO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138876 November 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EGMEDIO LAMPAZA

  • A.M. No. 99-9-141-MTCC November 25, 1998 - HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ISSUED BY JUDGE FELIPE M. ABALOS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1236 November 25, 1998 - GERMAN AGUNDAY v. NIETO T. TRESVALLES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1237 November 25, 1998 - ALFONSO LUMIBAO, ET AL. v. MAMERTO C. PANAL

  • G.R. No. 109024 November 25, 1998 - HEIRS OF MARCIANO SANGLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109307 November 25, 1998 - TEODORA SALTIGA DE ROMERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114262 November 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUIRINO QUIJADA

  • G.R. No. 119466 November 25, 1998 - SALVADOR and LIGAYA ADORABLE. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122823 November 25, 1998 - SEA COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123059 November 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO CAPILLO

  • G.R. No. 124140 November 25, 1998 - BERNARDO B. RESOSO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 127347 November 25, 1998 - ALFREDO N. AGUILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128389 November 25, 1998 - DON ORESTES ROMUALDEZ ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129958 November 25, 1998 - MIGUEL MELENDRES v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134340 November 25, 1998 - LININDING PANGANDAMAN v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116616 November 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO EMBERGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117929 November 26, 1998 - CORA VERGARA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129955 November 26, 1998 - MARIANO and JULIETA MADRIGAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134229 November 26, 1998 - LITO and JERRY LIMPANGOG. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-10-10-SC November 29, 1998 - RE: DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ANTONIO LAMANO

  • G.R. No. 116320 November 29, 1998 - ADALIA FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119341 November 29, 1998 - EDUARDO FONTANILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119350-51 November 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO SUBA

  • G.R. No. 123307 November 29, 1998 - SAMUEL BARANGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124640 November 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY A. CAPCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126800 November 29, 1998 - NATALIA P. BUSTAMANTE v. RODITO F. ROSEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127840 November 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLAND PARAISO

  • G.R. No. 128743 November 29, 1998 - ORO CAM ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133750 November 29, 1998 - APEX MINING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133927 November 29, 1998 - MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135423 November 29, 1998 - JESUS L. CHU v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136191 November 29, 1998 - JESUS O. TYPOCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.