PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. FELICIANO S. GONZALES, JUDGE OF THE CFI OF RIZAL, BRANCH IX, AND L & C INTEGRATED INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

This is a special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition with a prayer for preliminary injunction whereby the petitioner
seeks to nullify the order dated December
6, 1971 in Civil Case No. Q-8478 entitled “L & C
Integrated Industries, Inc. vs. Philippine Virginia Tobacco
Administration”, the dispositive part of which
reads:

“Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, let a special writ of
execution issue commanding the defendant to implement the purchase agreement of
June 1, 1964 and the memorandum agreement of August 21, 1968, as approved by
the Court in its order of September 3, 1968 and July 18, 1969, of the sale of
24.4 million kilos of PVTA tobacco and the importation of 6.1 million kilos of
blending tobacco pursuant to the provision of R.A. 4155.  The defendant is further ordered to cease and
desist from disposing of its tobacco stock by public bidding or by any other
means until it has completely performed its obligation to the plaintiff
pursuant to the decision of April 27,
1965.”1

On June 1, 1964, petitioner, Philippine Virginia Tobacco
Administration (defendant in Civil Case No. Q-8478), PVTA for short, a
government entity existing under Republic Act No. 2265 and respondent, L &
C Corporation (plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-8478), L & C for short, a
domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines,
executed a purchase agreement under which the latter shall buy from the former
42 million kilos of Grades “A”, “B”, and “C” of redried fluecured Virginia
tobacco.

When Republic Act No. 4155 subsequently took effect, the
respondent L & C filed with the PVTA on October 9, 1964 an application for authority to import
leaf tobacco for blending purposes pursuant to Section 4 thereof which reads:

“SEC. 4.  Importation
of foreign leaf tobacco only for blending purposes.   No person shall import leaf tobacco except
as herein provided.  When the Philippine
Virginia Tobacco Administration Board believes that it is necessary to improve the
quality of locally made Virginia cigarettes, the Philippine Virginia Tobacco
Administration may authorize any Filipino citizen or Filipino controlled corporation
or company to import, subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the
Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, foreign leaf tobacco for blending
purposes:  Provided, That the importer is
required to purchase local Virginia leaf tobacco from the Philippine Virginia
Tobacco Administration and export the same at the ratio of not more than one
kilogram of imported foreign leaf tobacco to every four kilograms of exported
local Virginia leaf tobacco purchased by the importer from the Philippine
Virginia Tobacco Administration which shall be exported simultaneously or
earlier than the importation x x x.”

On October 21, 1964, the petitioner adopted Resolution No. 283
authorizing the respondent L & C to import during the fiscal year
1964-1965, an amount of 2.4 million kilos of blending tobacco, it appearing
that the initial national requirements for the importation of blending tobacco
for the FY 1964-1965 had been fixed at 4.4 million kilos under said resolution;2
that the only tobacco available from PVTA stocks for disposal at public bidding
had a total of approximately eight million kilos of the 1964 crop; and that at
the 4 to 1 ratio under R.A. 4155, the quantity for importation constituted
approximately 2 million kilos of foreign blending tobacco, thus leaving a
balance of 2.4 million kilos for im­portation.

On December 8, 1964,
the petitioner invited bidders for the purchase of eight million kilos of
Grades “D” and “E” of PVTA tobacco stock, crop year 1964,
to be exported in consideration of the right to import two million kilos of
foreign leaf tobacco for blending purposes.

On December 23, 1964,
the petitioner adopted Resolution No. 356, authorizing respondent L & C to
import during the fiscal year 1964-1965 an additional amount of two million
kilos of blending tobacco, provided that no portion of the imported tobacco
shall be allowed to be brought into the country unless the counterpart
exportation of local Virginia
tobacco be first fully paid.3

On January 4, 1965,
the respondent L & C filed a complaint for injunction with prayer for
preliminary injunction against the petitioner PVTA with the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, which was docketed as Civil Case
No. Q-8478 and assigned to Branch IX, Quezon
City, seeking the following relief:

“(a) That
pending final determination of this action, a writ of preliminary injunction be
issued to restrain and prohibit defendant, its officers, agents or any other
persons acting for and on its behalf from conducting a public bidding on
January 8, 1965 or on any other date thereafter in respect of (i) the sale of eight million (8,000,000) kilos of Grades D
& E local Virginia leaf tobacco or (ii) the sale of Grades D & E local
Virginia leaf tobacco in any other amount or (iii) the sale of any other Grade
or Grades of local Virginia leaf tobacco in any amount whatsoever, until such
time as plaintiff shall have sold or otherwise disposed of all the ‘LOCAL
TOBACCO LEAF’ it has purchased from defendant under the Contract of June 1,
1964, Appendix ‘A’;

“(b) That after
due hearing, the writ of preliminary injunction herein prayed for be made final
and permanent, until such time as plaintiff shall have sold or otherwise
disposed of all the ‘LOCAL TOBACCO LEAF’ it has purchased from defendant under
the Contract of June 1, 1964, Appendix ‘A’.”4

The PVTA filed on January
14, 1965 its answer with opposition to the issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction.

On April 10, 1965,
the petitioner and the respondent, assisted by their respective counsels,
submitted to the lower court a compromise agreement, the terms and conditions
of which are:

“1.  (a) The parties mutually agree that the
Purchase Agreement of June 1, 1964, Appendix ‘A’ of the Complaint, covering 42
million kilos of Grades ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ local tobacco purchased by plaintiff
from defendant shall continue in full force and effect under the same terms and
conditions.

“(b) Moreover,
the parties mutually agree that plaintiff’s authority to import blending
tobacco, in the total amount of 4.4 million kilos, granted by defendant in its
Resolution Nos. 283 and 356, both series of 1964, Appendix ‘C’ shall
continue to be recognized by defendant.

“(c) Furthermore,
defendant will make representation to the Office of the President of the Philippines
for the confirmation by the said Office of plaintiff’s authority to import the
aforesaid 4.4 million kilos, which authority has already been granted to
plaintiff by virtue of the aforesaid resolutions.

“2.  (a) Plaintiff will purchase from defendant
and the latter shall sell to the former 9.6 million kilos of defendant’s Grades
‘D’ and ‘E’ re-dried, flue-cured Virginia tobacco in accordance with the
agreement, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex ‘A’ and made part hereof;

“3.  Defendant agrees that it shall assist
plaintiff in every way possible within the limits of its resources to realize
the implementation of the ex­portation of the 9.6 million kilos of Grades ‘D’
and ‘E’ local tobacco to be acquired from defendant and of the 42 million kilos
of Grades ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ local tobacco covered by the Purchase Agreement of
June 1, 1964, Appendix ‘A’ of the Complaint provided plaintiff is able to
comply with its obligations under its contracts with the defendant referred to
herein.”5

On April 14, 1965,
as a supplement to the aforementioned Compromise Agreement, the petitioner PVTA
and respondent L & C executed a Memorandum Agreement6 covering the above-mentioned
exportation of 9.6 million kilos of PVTA tobacco and the importation of 2.4
million kilos of foreign blending tobacco.

On April 27, 1965,
the lower court rendered its decision approving the Compromise Agreement and
enjoining the parties to abide by and comply with the terms and conditions
embodied therein.7

On March 29, 1966,
the respondent L & C filed a motion with the lower court for the issuance
of a special writ of execution to enforce the aforementioned compromise
agreement.

The petitioner made representations with the Office of the
President to authorize the exportation of 9.6 million kilos of local tobacco
and the importation of 2.4 million kilos of blending tobacco.  The export-import agreement, however, was not
approved at the same time.  In 1966, only
four million kilos of local tobacco were allowed to be exported and one million
kilos of blending tobacco to be imported.  
So, on August 12, 1966,
the petitioner and respondent executed an agreement denominated as the
“Renegotiated Memorandum of Agreement”8 which
allowed the export of only four million kilos of PVTA tobacco out of the 9.6
million kilos as agreed upon in the Memorandum Agreement dated April 14, 1965 and the import of one
million kilos foreign blending tobacco.

On September 5, 1967,
a “Revised Memorandum of Agreement”9 was entered into by the petitioner and
respondent for the renegotiation of the purchase from the PTVA of the balance
of 5.6 million kilos of Virginia
leaf tobacco with the right to import 1.4 million kilos blending tobacco.

On April 17, 1968, the respondent L & C filed another motion
with the lower court for the issuance of a special writ of execution to order
the petitioner to implement the original purchase agreement of June 1, 1964,
and to authorize the importation of 4.4 million kilos of blending tobacco as
provided for in the aforementioned PVTA Board Resolution Nos. 183 and 356.

The petitioner alleged that despite its opposition on the ground
that the respondent L & C has not yet completed the Renegotiated Memorandum
of Agreement for 5.6 million kilos, the lower court issued an order dated June
14, 1968 for the implementation of the June 1, 1964 purchase agreement,
commanding petitioner to make representation with the Office of the President
with the end in view of obtaining clearance for the plaintiff to import
blending tobacco.

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was
denied.  Hence, the petitioner was
constrained to enter into another Memorandum Agreement with the respondent L
& C on August 21, 1968,
allowing the latter to purchase 17.6 million kilos of PVTA tobacco and to
import 4.4 million kilos of blending tobacco based on the following conditions:10

“The PVTA hereby authorizes the L & C to import 4.4
million kilos of blending tobacco as a recognition of the grant of this right
under PVTA Board Resolution Nos. 283 and 356, both series of 1964, in
consideration for the purchase and exportation of 17.6 million kilos of PVTA
tobacco out of the 42 million kilos under the Contract of June 1, 1964, under
the following terms and conditions, to wit:

x        x          x

“12.  That to be able to import blending tobacco,
the VENDEE shall first obtain a Certificate of Authority to import from the
PVTA and approved by the Office of the President, provided, however, that no
Certificate of Authority to import shall be issued unless the VENDEE has shown
by indubitable proof that the corresponding quantity of PVTA tobacco has been
previously exported, and only after the VENDEE has complied with its obligations
in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement;

x        x          x

“14.  That the right to import, although granted to
the VENDEE, may nevertheless be cancelled by the PVTA, and/or by the Office of
the President if the VENDEE has not complied fully with its contractual
obligations with the PVTA;

“15.  That the PVTA and/or the Office of the
President reserves the right to suspend the importation of blending tobacco if
conditions under which importation may be authorized under Republic Act No. 4155
are no longer present; provided, however, that the suspension will not affect
the VENDEE’S certificate(s) of authority to import already issued by the PVTA
and approved by the Office of the President;

x        x          x          x

“19.  The quantity of 17.6 million kilos out of the
42 million kilos covered by the Contract of June 1, 1964 having already been
covered by the export-import transactions in connection with the 4.4 million
kilos to be imported, the implementation of the Contract of Purchase of June 1,
1964, as to the balance of 24.4 million kilos shall be the subject of further
renegotiation inasmuch as, this part of the implementation of the Contract of
Purchase of June 1, 1964 cannot be undertaken all at the same time with the
other phases of this Agreement;

“20.  That this Agreement shall not be effective
unless the same is approved by the Office of the President of the Philippines
in accordance with the directive of that Office that Agreements regarding the
sale, exportation and importation of PVTA tobacco shall be submitted to it for
review and approval and the required cash performance bond, filed.”11

The abovementioned Memorandum Agreement of August 21, 1968 was
then submitted to the Office of the President which approved the same, subject
to the conditions stated in the letter of the Director General of the
Presidential Economic Staff12 dated October 15, 1968, requiring
L & C to export without import rights, one-half (1/2) kilo for every four
(4) kilos exported and entitled to import rights at the rate of 4 to 1.  This agreement, as amended, was approved by
the lower court on October 18, 1968.13
However, the conditions imposed in the letter of the Director General were
withdrawn.  On July 18, 1969, the lower court issued an order
setting aside the conditions imposed in the letter of the Director General of
the Presidential Staff.

On July 23, 1971, the respondent L & C filed with the lower
court a motion for the issuance of a special writ of execution requiring PVTA
to implement the purchase agreement of June 1, 1964 and Memorandum Agreement of
August 21, 1968 for the sale of 24.4 million kilos of PVTA tobacco and the
importation of 6.1 million kilos of blending tobacco pursuant to Republic Act
No. 4155 and restraining petitioner from disposing of its tobacco stock by
public bidding or any other means until compliance therewith.

In said motion, respondent L & C alleged that when it was
about to complete the exportation of 17.6 million kilos of export tobacco and
the import rights corresponding thereto, it requested PVTA to start
implementing the provision regarding the remaining balance of 24.4 million
kilos export tobacco and the import rights corresponding thereto in the
proportion established by R.A. 4155; that in reply to L & C’s request, PVTA
informed L & C that while it was willing to allow L & C to purchase
24.4 million kilos, it was not disposed to grant any import rights corresponding
to said 24.4 million kilos of tobacco to be purchased by L & C; that this
is not denied by PVTA since it was readying to dispose all of its existing
stocks of PVTA tobacco in a public bidding on August 4, 1971, wherein
successful bidders would be granted corresponding right to import blending
tobacco in the statutory proportion of 1 kilo for every 4 kilos of local
tobacco purchased by the successful bidder.14

On August 4, 1971, the petitioner PVTA filed an opposition
alleging that the decision of the lower court, dated April 27, 1965 had become functus oficio, as
it was superseded by the Memorandum Agreement of August 21, 1968, and that
consequently the respondent judge has no jurisdiction to issue a special writ
of execution of said decision and to implement the original purchase agreement
of July 1, 1964, as it is provided in paragraph 19 of said agreement that:

“19.  The quantity of 17.6 million kilos out of the
42 million kilos covered by the Contract of June 1, 1964 having already been
covered by the export-import transactions in connection with the 4.4 million kilos
to be imported, the implementation of the Contract Purchase of June 1, 1964 as
to the balance of 24.4 million kilos shall be the subject of further
renegotiations inasmuch as, this part of the implementation of the Contract of
Purchase of June 1, 1964 cannot be undertaken at the same time with the other
phases of this Agreement.”15

On December 6, 1971,
the lower court overruled the opposition and issued an order granting a special
writ of execution as prayed for by L & C, a portion of which reads:

“Upon consideration of the premises, the Court finds the
contention of the plaintiff entirely well-founded.  As contended by the plaintiff, paragraph 19
of the memorandum agreement of August 21, 1966, was not intended for the
purpose of determining whether or not the plaintiff was to be granted import
rights corresponding to the balance of 24.4 million kilos of local tobacco to
be bought by the plaintiff but was for the purpose of agreeing on the schedule
of the said importation and the corresponding importation of blending tobacco
in a workable staggered schedule.  For
the defendant now to claim that it is not disposed to grant to the plaintiff
any import rights corresponding to the balance of 24.4 million kilos of PVTA
tobacco to be purchased by the plaintiff and on top of it to dispose of its
existing stock of tobacco in a public bidding to other commercial entities, who
are most probably in competition with the plaintiff and to deprive it from
importing blending tobacco pursuant to its undertaking in accordance with the
provisions of Republic Act 4155 would be in derogation of plaintiff’s
rights.  The Court has noted from the
records that inspite of previous negotiations between
the parties leading to the signing of several memorandum agreements to
implement the decision, the plaintiff has been repeatedly compelled to seek the
aid of the Court to order the defendant to perform its obligation.”16

Hence, the PVTA filed the present petition for certiorari
and prohibition with a prayer for preliminary injunction to set aside said
order of the respondent judge on the ground that the judge acted with grave
abuse of discretion, lack of jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.

This Court, in its Resolution dated March 2, 1979, granted the preliminary injunction prayed
for by the petitioner upon the posting of a bond of P10,000.00.17

The issues involved are:

1.      
Whether or not the petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy in the case at bar;
and

2.      
Whether or not the respondent judge can compel
petitioner to allow the sale of 24.4 million kilos of PVTA tobacco to and the
importation of 6.1 million kilos of blending tobacco by the respondent.

On the first issue, the respondent contends that since the present
petition is an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court, the petitioner must establish lack or excess of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent court and
in addition, absence of appeal or of any plain or speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law; that the questioned order of respondent court was
issued upon the petition of private respondent for the issuance of special writ
of execution to compel the petitioner to implement one of two agreements
approved by the respondent court in its decision of April 27, 1965 by allowing
L & C to purchase the balance of 24.4 million kilos of local tobacco and to
import blending tobacco in the amount of 6.1 million kilos after PVTA was given
an opportunity to be heard and in fact PVTA had filed an opposition thereto;
that the petition was even set for hearing; that the order of the court in
favor of L & C was but an exercise by the court of its jurisdiction and
even granting that the court’s findings and conclusions were erroneous (and
actually they were not), the petition for certiorari will not lie
against said order; and that the questioned order was not only within the
court’s jurisdiction and competence but was in accordance with laws and facts.18

In answer to respondent’s memorandum, the petitioner contends
that the respondent judge did not merely err in the judgment, but acted without
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the aforementioned
order because the writ of execution does not conform to any final court
decision or order or any court approved compromise agreement as there is none
which compels petitioner to sell to respondent L & C 24.4 million kilos of
PVTA tobacco and allow it to import 6.1 million kilos of blending tobacco; and
that as such the order of execution has no basis.19

The petitioner’s contention is tenable.  This Court finds that there is no decision or
court approved compromise agreement which could be the subject of a writ of execution
to compel the petitioner to sell 24.4 million kilos of PVTA tobacco to the
respondent L & C and allow it to import 6.1 million kilos of foreign
blending tobacco.  The compromise
agreement of April 10, 1965 and the purchase agreement of June 1, 1964 strongly
relied upon by the respondent does not provide that the purchase of 42 million
kilos of PVTA tobacco will entitle respondent L & C to import 10.5 million
kilos of blending tobacco.  The said compromise
agreement provides, inter alia, that
the purchase agreement shall remain in full face and effect.

The respondent judge, in rendering the questioned order, relied
upon the Memorandum Agreement of August
21, 1968.  However, said
agreement did not give respondent L & C the right to import 6.1 million
kilos of blending tobacco if it were to purchase 24.4 million kilos of PVTA
tobacco.  It merely reduced the amount of
tobacco to be purchased and exported under the June 1, 1964 agreement from 42 million kilos to 17.6
million kilos with the collateral right to import 4.4 million kilos of blending
tobacco.  Under paragraph 19 of said
agreement, the right to purchase the balance of 24.4 million kilos was even
“subject to further renegotiation”. 
This means that there was still no contract or agreement over the balance
of 24.4 million kilos which would be the basis of a right to import.  In the absence of such contract, there are no
rights and obligations which can be enforced by a writ of execution.

There being no decision or court approved compromise agreement providing
for the right to export 24.4 million kilos of PVTA tobacco and to import 6.1
million kilos of blending tobacco, the respondent judge had no jurisdiction to
issue the order of execution in question. 
The writ of execution must conform with the judgment to be executed as
it may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce.20
Thus, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court is the proper remedy in the case at bar.

On the second issue, the petitioner cannot be compelled to sell
to the L & C 24.4 million kilos of PVTA tobacco and to allow said L & C
to import 6.1 million kilos of blending tobacco.  In the first place, as previously pointed
out, a perusal of the terms of the 1964 purchase agreement and the court approved
compromise agreement of 1965 reveals no provision which can be construed as
granting to respondent L & C the right to import 10.5 million kilos of
blending tobacco.  In the second place,
the respondent cannot rely on Section 4 of R.A. 4155.  The 1964 purchase agreement was entered into
on June 1, 1964, before R.A.
4155 took effect.  Only laws existing at
the time of the execution of contract are applicable to said transaction.  Well-settled is the statutory rule that
statutes have no retroactive effect unless otherwise provided therein.21
Nothing in R. A. 4155 provides that it should have retroactive effect.

It is true that subsequent transactions of the petitioner and the
respondent transpired at the time R.A. 4155 had already taken effect.  However, it should be noted that the
importation of blending tobacco is not a matter of right which can be availed
of by every Filipino purchaser-exporter of local PVTA tobacco.  Section 4 of R.A. 4155 provides:

“SEC. 4.  Importation
of foreign leaf tobacco only for blending purposes.  No person shall import leaf tobacco except as
herein provided.  When the Philippine
Virginia Tobacco Administration Board believes that it is necessary to improve the
quality of locally made Virginia cigarettes, the Philippine Virginia Tobacco
Administration may authorize any Filipino citizen or Filipino controlled corporation
or company to import, subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the
Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, foreign leaf tobacco for blending
purposes:  Provided, That the importer is
required to purchase local Virginia leaf tobacco from the Philippine Virginia
Tobacco Administration and export the same at the ratio not more than one
kilogram of imported foreign leaf tobacco to every four kilograms of exported
local Virginia leaf tobacco purchased by the importer from the Philippine
Virginia Tobacco Administration which shall be exported simultaneously or
earlier than the importation x x x.”

It is clear from the foregoing that the PVTA has the discretion
to grant import rights if it believes that the importation of foreign leaf
tobacco is necessary to improve the quality of locally made Virginia
cigarettes.  The mere fact that a
Filipino citizen or entity holds a contract to purchase PVTA tobacco for
exportation does not necessarily give him the right to demand that he be
allowed to import blending tobacco.  While
such purchase and exportation of PVTA tobacco are conditions precedent to the
grant of the privilege to import, it is further required that importation of
blending tobacco is necessary to improve the quality of locally-made Virginia
cigarettes.  Otherwise, the PVTA is not
obliged to grant the Filipino purchaser-exporter the privilege to import
blending tobacco.

The sale of tobacco stock by public bidding, as scheduled by the
PVTA, with the collateral import rights at the ratio of 1 to 4 million kilos
pursuant to R.A. 4155 to be given to the successful bidder, implies that there
is a need for the importation of foreign blending tobacco in order to improve
the quality of locally-made Virginia cigarettes.  This, however, does not affect the alleged
import rights of L & C.  The
respondent L & C has no right yet to import 6.1 million kilos of blending
tobacco because paragraph 19 of the 1968 agreement reads:

“. . . the implementation of the contract of Purchase of June
1, 1964 as to the balance of 24.4 million kilos shall be the subject of further
renegotiation inasmuch as, this part of the implementation of the contract of
Purchase of June 1, 1964 cannot be undertaken all at the same time with the
other phases of this Agreement.”

Paragraph 19 is clear that only the sale of the balance of 24.4
million kilos of PVTA tobacco is subject to further renegotiation.  Nothing is said about the import rights of
6.1 million kilos of blending tobacco. 
The petitioner PVTA has not refused to further renegotiate as to the
sale of the 24.4 million kilos of PVTA tobacco to the respondent L & C.  In fact, it is admitted that the petitioner
is allowing the respondent L & C to purchase 24.4 million kilos of PVTA
tobacco but without the import rights of 6.1 million kilos of blending
tobacco.  The mere fact that the
respondent L & C was allowed to purchase the 24.4 million kilos of PVTA
tobacco does not necessarily give said respondent the right to demand that it
be allowed to import 6.1 million kilos of blending tobacco.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is
granted.  The order of the respondent
judge, dated December 6, 1971,
is declared void and set aside, without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, and
De Castro, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., took no part.

1
Annex “S”, Rollo, p. 87.

2
Annex “C”, Rollo, p. 27.

3
Annex “E”, Rollo, p. 29.

4
Annex “F”, Rollo, pp. 30-36.

5
Annex “H”, Rollo, pp. 43-44.

6
Annex “I”, Rollo, pp. 45-48.

7
Rollo, pp. 51-52.

10
Annex “P”, Rollo, pp. 71-76.

11
Ibid., Rollo, pp. 72, 74-76.

12 Rollo, p. 121.

13 Rollo, pp.
122-123.

14 Respondent’s Memorandum, p. 13, Rollo,
p. 166.

15 Rollo, p. 13.

16 Annex “S”, Rollo,
pp. 86-87.

17 Rollo, p. 143.

18 Respondent’s Memorandum, Rollo,
pp. 154-156.

19 Petitioner’s Memorandum, Rollo,
p. 242.

20 Gamboa’s Incorporated vs.
Court of Appeals, L-23634, July 29,
1976, 72 SCRA 131; Lopez vs. Reyes, L-29498, March 31, 1977, 76 SCRA 179.

21 Salcedo vs. CA,
L-40846, January 31, 1978,
81 SCRA 408.