Lokin, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan [Special Fourth Division]

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 227383. July 3, 2017.]

LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., petitionervs. SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION], respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 July 2017which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 227383: LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION]

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, lower courts are required to adhere to the principles and doctrinal rules already settled in the final decisions of this Court, provided that the facts and arguments raised have substantial similarities.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, praying that the May 7, 2009 2 and September 29, 2016 3 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be reversed and set aside. 4 The May 7, 2009 Resolution found petitioner guilty of indirect contempt in Sandiganbayan Case No. SB-07-SCA-005. 5 The September 29, 2016 Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed its earlier findings. 6

On June 7, 2007, the Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises of the Senate of the Philippines issued Committee Report No. 312 (Committee Report), designated as "Re: Proposed Resolution No. 455 entitled 'Resolution Directing an Inquiry, in Aid of Legislation, on the Anomalous Losses Incurred by the Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (Philcomsat) and Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (PHC) Due to Alleged Improprieties in the Operations by Their Respective Board of Directors.'" 7 The Committee Report was the culmination of the Senate's legislative inquiry on the alleged losses of the named corporations and the improprieties of their respective directors. 8

Page 11 of the Committee Report read:

Audit Working Papers of [Philcomsat Holdings Corporation] External Auditor Virgilio Santos

Affidavit of Erlinda Bildner

During the 22 January 2007 hearing, Ms. Erlinda Bildner gave testimony in relation to an affidavit she had executed on the same day and submitted to the Committee concerning alleged anomalies and improprieties culled from the working papers of Virgilio Santos, the external auditor of the [Philcomsat Holdings Corporation], which had been submitted to the Committee by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). . . CAIHTE

xxx xxx xxx

Ms. Bildner cited the following suspicious expenses of [Philcomsat Holdings Corporation]:

xxx xxx xxx

5. 'Cash for Sandiganbayan, tro, potc-philcomsat case — P2,000,000'

xxx xxx xxx

When asked about the entry 'Cash for Sandiganbayan, tro, potc-philcomsat case for P2,000,000', [Philcomsat Holdings Corporation Assistant Vice-President] and Accountant Johnny Tan said that he could not remember exactly but that he gave the amount to either Mr. Brodett or Mr. Nieto.When asked if he inquired what the amount was for, he said that he was told it was for [Public Relations].9 (Emphasis supplied)

Upon the Sandiganbayan's receipt of the Committee Report, it initiated motu propio contempt proceedings against the following officers of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation: Assistant Vice-President and Accountant Johnny Tan (Tan); President and Chief Executive Officer Manuel Nieto (Nieto); and Director Philip Brodett (Brodett). 10 The Sandiganbayan found that Erlinda Bildner's statements "tend to cast aspersion upon the integrity of the Sandiganbayan and thereby degrade the administration of justice." 11 In particular, these statements were "[c]ash for Sandiganbayan, tro, potc-philcomsat case — P2,000,000" and "[w]hen asked if he inquired what the amount was for, he said that he was told it was for PR." 12 In its June 26, 2007 Resolution, 13 the Sandiganbayan ordered Tan, Nieto, and Brodett to submit their respective written explanations "why they should not be held in contempt of Court[.]" 14

On July 6, 2007, the Sandiganbayan issued an Order requiring Atty. Luis Lokin (Atty. Lokin), Atty. Sikini Labastilla (Atty. Labastilla), Henry Locsin (Locsin), and Virgilio Santos (Santos) to present their explanation in relation to the circumstances surrounding the P2,000,000.00 entry referred to in the Committee Report. 15

On January 18, 2008, the Sandiganbayan promulgated another Resolution, 16 which read:

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets this case for further hearing on February 20, 2008, 8:30 a.m. for respondents Philip Brodett, Johnny Tan, and Manuel Nieto, including Atty. Luis Lokin, Mr. Enrique/Henry Locsin, Atty. Sikini Labastilla and Mr. Virgilio Santos, who having been required to submit explanations are also considered as respondents in this case for them to present explanation, additional/supplemental explanation and/or evidence to show why they should not be cited for contempt and/or this Court to receive evidence from any other person it may call in connection with the alleged disbursement of two million pesos for the Sandiganbayan mentioned in Senate Resolution No. 455 dated June 7, 2007, to achieve a just disposition of this case. 17

Tan and Brodett explained that according to the Transcript of Stenographic Notes of the Senate proceedings and the Committee Report, the money was payment for the legal fee of Atty. Labastilla and not for the Sandiganbayan. 18 Santos maintained that he did not participate in or was aware of the P2,000,000.00 entry "because the entries in his Auditor Working Paper (AWP) were taken by him from the accounting records submitted by the [Philcomsat Holdings Corporation] accountant for his audit." 19 He added that he already gave this explanation during the Senate Hearing. 20 Nieto was not able to submit his explanation due to the effects of dementia and Locsin failed to file his written explanation. 21

Atty. Labastilla argued that the P2,000,000.00 entry was payment to him as legal counsel for the cases he handled for Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corporation and Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation. 22

On the other hand, Atty. Lokin stressed in his explanation that he did "not handle any case for [Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation] or [Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corporation] before the Sandiganbayan or other courts[.]" 23 Atty. Lokin pointed out that Atty. Labastilla already admitted that the money was for the legal expenses of Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corporation and Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation. 24

The Sandiganbayan conducted several hearings to receive evidence from witnesses or resource persons. 25 On May 7, 2009, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution, 26 holding Atty. Lokin and Atty. Labastilla liable for indirect contempt. The findings of the Sandiganbayan were:

Thus, the issues to be resolved in this contempt proceeding are whether or not the entry in the record of Philcomsat — "Cash — for Sandiganbayan tro, potc-philcomsat case — 2,000,000.00"— was meant to show that the fee of P2M was paid to the Sandiganbayan for the TRO in POTC Philcomsat case; and if so, who caused it. Corollary thereto, it should also be determined whether or not there was indeed a fee paid for the said Sandiganbayan TRO, and if so, who paid and who was paid in order that appropriate charges for Bribery and/or violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti Graft Law) may be filed.

[A]ny person reading the subject entry would come to the conclusion that the amount of two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) was paid for the Sandiganbayan TRO, thereby degrading its integrity and honor. There can be no other interpretation as the subject entry speaks for itself, damaging as it is to the Sandiganbayan. As such, the subject entry is unquestionably and highly contemptuous. DETACa

The Court will now determine who caused the subject entry. The record/evidence does not point or identify the person who actually made the entry. It appears, however, that the entry was the immediate result of, or directly caused by, the check stub of the two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) wherein the then accounting clerk of Philcomsat, Desideria D. Casas wrote "CASH c/o LKL POTC/Philcomsat case (FOR SANDIGANBAYAN TRO)." According to her, she entered in the stub the words "for the Sandiganbayan TRO" upon the instruction of Atty. Lokin. There is no question that this entry in the check stub is the immediate cause of the subject entry. Stated otherwise, what is written in the subject entry was taken from the entry in the check stub which was made by Ms. Casas upon the instruction of Atty. Lokin. For this reason coupled with the fact that the 2M check was encashed by his employee Edison Pant[a]llano, it is logical to conclude that Mr. Lokin caused the subject entry or was the proximate cause thereof. Such being the case, he should be held responsible or liable for it. His contention that he gave the money to Atty. Labastilla who admitted its receipt is immaterial. It is also immaterial that the 2M was for legal fees of the latter or fees paid to the Sandiganbayan officials/employees which would result to more serious charges. What matters is that the subject entry which was the result of Lokin's instruction to Ms. Casas denigrates or undermines the integrity of the Sandiganbayan. 27 (Emphasis in the original)

On the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Sandiganbayan also found that Atty. Lokin and Atty. Labastilla conspired with each other in making the entry. 28 However, it held that there was no sufficient evidence to hold the other respondents in conspiracy with Atty. Lokin and Atty. Labastilla. 29 The dispositive portion of the Resolution read:

In view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the respondents Attys. Luis Lokin Jr. and Sikini Labastilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Indirect Contempt and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) and suffer six (6) months of imprisonment and acquitting/absolving respondents Johnny Tan, Manuel Nieto, Philip Brodett, Enrique/Henry Locsin, & Virgilio Santos. Ms. Desideria Casas is hereby required to explain within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof why she should not be cited for indirect contempt for her participation in the subject entry.

SO ORDERED.30 (Emphasis in the original)

Atty. Labastilla appealed the May 7, 2009 Resolution by filing before this Court a Petition for Review, which was entitled Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla v. Hon. Sandiganbayan [First Division] and was docketed as G.R. No. 187699. 31 In the Resolution dated August 3, 2009, this Court denied Atty. Labastilla's Petition for "failure to sufficiently show that the Sandiganbayan committed any reversible error in the challenged resolution as to warrant the exercise by this Court (the Supreme Court) of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction." 32 The August 3, 2009 Resolution became final and executory on March 29, 2010, as per entry of judgment. 33

Likewise, Atty. Lokin appealed the May 7, 2009 Resolution. He filed an Omnibus Motion 34 and Supplement 35 to the Omnibus Motion before the Sandiganbayan. Atty. Lokin prayed that the members of the First Division inhibit from his case and that it be re-raffled to another division. He also prayed for the reconsideration of the assailed Resolution. 36

Atty. Lokin's motion for inhibition was granted by the members of the First Division, while his motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan Special Fourth Division in its September 29, 2016 Resolution. 37

In denying the motion for reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan noted that there was "perfect symmetry if not near identity between the issues and arguments presented by Atty. Labastilla in his petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court and the issues and arguments now being presented by Atty. Lokin in his motion for reconsideration." 38 This Court already ruled with finality that the Sandiganbayan did not commit any reversible error in its May 7, 2009 Resolution. Hence, the findings that the entry was contemptuous, that Atty. Lokin was its proximate cause, and that Atty. Lokin and Atty. Labastilla conspired to commit the contemptuous act "should be deemed established with conclusiveness and finality." 39

The Sandiganbayan emphasized that the liability of Atty. Labastilla was based on circumstantial evidence and on the presumption that there was conspiracy between him and Atty. Lokin. As co-conspirators, their contemptuous act could not be separated from each other, especially because only the two (2) of them — with Tan, Nieto, Brodett, Lacson, and Santos being found with insufficient evidence to have conspired with them — were held liable for contempt. 40

The Sandiganbayan cited its January 18, 2008 Resolution, which required Atty. Lokin to submit his explanation and considered him as one (1) of the respondents, 41 to address his contention that the Sandiganbayan did not acquire jurisdiction over his person since "he was not properly impleaded as a respondent." 42

The dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan's September 29, 2016 Resolution read:

ACCORDINGLY, Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr.'s motion for reconsideration of the Court's Resolution of May 7, 2009 finding him liable for indirect contempt and sentencing him to pay a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) and to suffer six (6) months of imprisonment is DENIED. aDSIHc

SO ORDERED. 43

On December 15, 2016, Atty. Lokin (petitioner) filed this Petition for Review 44 before this Court against the Sandiganbayan (Special Fourth Division). He prays that the May 7, 2009 and September 29, 2016 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be reversed and set aside and that he be acquitted of the indirect contempt charge. 45

Petitioner argues that the denial of Atty. Labastilla's petition before this Court should not prejudice his motion for reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan. There were defenses in petitioner's motion for reconsideration that were personal to him, and thus, should have been considered by the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, Atty. Labastilla's petition was denied without an elaboration on this Court's findings or a discussion on the grounds for denial. 46

Petitioner also alleges that he was deprived of due process when neither order nor formal charge was issued against him, when he was deprived of his opportunity to present evidence, and when the tribunal that heard his case was not impartial. 47

Petitioner contends that there was no basis in holding him liable for indirect contempt. Atty. Labastilla's admission that the amount was for legal fees as evidenced by the billings from Atty. Labastilla's firm and the corresponding September 4, 2006 Minutes 48 of the Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation Board of Directors Meeting "should have already absolved [petitioner] of any participation whatsoever in the contempt issue." 49 Desideria Casas (Casas), the accounting clerk who wrote the P2,000,000.00 entry, stated during the June 27, 2008 and July 4, 2008 hearings and in her October 7, 2008 Affidavit that the entry was made upon the instruction or supervision of either Brodett or Tan. 50 Edison Pantallano, an employee at Atty. Lokin's law office, also testified that he had encashed the P2,000,000.00 check as requested by Tan, who received the proceeds of this check. 51

For resolution are the following issues:

First, whether the Sandiganbayan erred when it automatically denied petitioner Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr.'s Motion for Reconsideration based on this Court's denial of Atty. Sikini Labastilla's petition for review before this Court;

Second, whether petitioner was deprived of due process; and

Finally, whether Sandiganbayan had basis in holding petitioner liable for indirect contempt.

I

Petitioner contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in automatically denying his motion for reconsideration based on this Court's denial of Atty. Labastilla's appeal.

Petitioner's contention has no merit.

In its September 29, 2016 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan enumerated Atty. Labastilla's arguments in his Petition for Review and Atty. Lokin's arguments in his Motion for Reconsideration, thus:

Atty. Labastilla presented the following arguments:

(1) The entry ("Cash for Sandiganbayan tro, potc-philcomsat case-P2,000,000") which prompted respondent Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the officers of the Philcomsat Holding[s] Corporation (PHC) is not contemptuous.

(2) Respondent court failed to meet the requisite quantum of evidence to prove his guilt for indirect contempt, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt, because:

(a) There was no direct evidence against him which shows that he had any participation in the making of the contemptuous entry;

(b) There was reasonable doubt that it was Atty. Lokin who instructed Casas to write in the check stub the entry "CASH c/o LKL POTC/Philcomsat case (FOR SANDIGANBAYAN TRO)," considering that:

(i) The check stub containing the notation "c/o LKL, Jr." could have been tampered, and hence should not be given evidentiary weight;

(ii) The testimony of accounting clerk Desideria D. Casas that it was Atty. Lokin who instructed her to write the subject entry cannot be relied upon because she made inconsistent statements as to who instructed her to make the subject entry, at one point claiming that she cannot remember, at another point, claiming that it was either respondents Tan or Brodett; and

(c) The circumstantial evidence being relied upon by the Court did not establish that he conspired with Atty. Lokin in causing the preparation of the check stub containing the subject entry.

(3) The assailed resolution was promulgated in violation of his constitutional right to due process, considering that: (a) the respondents in the contempt proceedings, including himself, were deprived of their right to present evidence on their behalf due to respondent court's undue haste in promulgating the assailed resolution; and (b) the hearing was not conducted before a fair and impartial tribunal, considering that Honorable Diosdado M. Peralta, then Chairperson of the First Division (later Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan and presently Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) manifested bias and partiality and adopted an attitude presuming the guilt of the parties. ETHIDa

In his motion for reconsideration, Atty. Lokin presented the following arguments:

(1) The entire proceedings were tainted with irregularities, improper procedure, and violations of due process, and should therefore be annulled because: (a) he was not properly impleaded as respondent in this case in violation of his right to due process; (b) he was not subjected to a fair and impartial trial because the members of the First Division acted as complainant, prosecutor, and judge all at the same time; and (c) the Court prematurely and improperly rendered judgment against him despite the pendency of several incidents which have not yet been resolved;

(2) He was denied the right and opportunity to present evidence on his behalf.

(3) There was nothing contemptuous about the entry "Cash for Sandiganbayan TRO, POTC-PHILCOMSAT case-P2,000,000" as to undermine and/or denigrate the honor of the Sandiganbayan.

(4) His guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence presented showed that the entry was not made under his instruction, but upon the instruction and supervision of the former Vice-President and Assistant Vice-President/Accountant of PHC.

(5) The alleged check stub where the entry was supposedly found is of doubtful authenticity. It has been tampered and should have been excluded as evidence. (It is alleged that the notation "c/o LKL JR" was intercalated and inserted after the records of the PHC were taken from the office premises.) 52 (Emphasis in the original)

The Sandiganbayan noted the similarities between Atty. Labastilla's and Atty. Lokin's arguments in their respective appeals and summarized them as follows: 53

(1) The entry "Cash for Sandiganbayan TRO, POTC-PHILCOMSAT case-P2,000,000" is not contemptuous;

(2) There is reasonable doubt that it was Atty. Lokin who instructed Casas to write in the check stub the entry "CASH c/o LKL POTC/Philcomsat case (FOR SANDIGANBAYAN TRO)."

(3) The indirect contempt proceedings were not conducted before a fair and impartial tribunal; and

(4) Respondents were denied due process because they were deprived of their right to adduce evidence on their behalf. 54 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)

Contrary to petitioner's allegation, there was no automatic denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Sandiganbayan reviewed Atty. Labastilla's arguments vis-a-vis petitioner's own, and summarized their common arguments. Since this Court has already ruled on the first three (3) common contentions, a re-examination was no longer necessary. This Court's ruling with respect to these arguments should be respected pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis.

The doctrine of stare decisis has been explained by this Court in Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank:55

Time and again, the Court has held that it is a very desirable and necessary judicial practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue. 56 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

In Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Pagdanganan: 57

The doctrine of stare decisis embodies the legal maxim that a principle or rule of law which has been established by the decision of a court of controlling jurisdiction will be followed in other cases involving a similar situation. It is founded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability in the law and does not require identity of or privity of parties. This is unmistakable from the wordings of Article 8 of the Civil Code. It is even said that such decisions "assume the same authority as the statute itself and, until authoritatively abandoned, necessarily become, to the extent that they are applicable, the criteria which must control the actuations not only of those called upon to decide thereby but also of those in duty bound to enforce obedience thereto." Abandonment thereof must be based only on strong and compelling reasons, otherwise, the becoming virtue of predictability which is expected from this Court would be immeasurably affected and the public's confidence in the stability of the solemn pronouncements diminished. 58 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)

In Ting v. Velez-Ting: 59 cSEDTC

The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence by lower courts to doctrinal rules established by this Court in its final decisions. It is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. Basically, it is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issues, necessary for two simple reasons: economy and stability. In our jurisdiction, the principle is entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code. 60 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Absent any compelling reason to abandon this Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 187699, the Sandiganbayan correctly held that this Court's rejection of Atty. Labastilla's identical arguments established that: (1) the entry was contemptuous; (2) that petitioner was the one who instructed Casas to write the entry in the check stub; and (3) that the members of the Sandiganbayan First Division were impartial and fair when they rendered the May 7, 2009 Resolution. Thus, the Sandiganbayan had basis and did not err in holding petitioner liable for indirect contempt.

II

On Atty. Lokin's contention of deprivation of due process, the Sandiganbayan elaborated that he was properly impleaded in its January 18, 2008 Resolution when he was directed to explain why he should not be held liable for contempt. He was even explicitly considered as one (1) of the respondents. He was given an opportunity to explain and he, in fact, submitted his Compliance to it. 61

Assuming that there was a defect in the way petitioner was impleaded, it was cured when he "actively participated in the proceedings by propounding questions and/or cross-examining some of the witnesses or resource persons which [the Sandiganbayan] subpoenaed to testify[.]" 62 Petitioner's participation implies that he voluntarily submitted himself to the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. 63 The Sandiganbayan also found that petitioner was given an opportunity to present his evidence, but he failed to do so "within the period prescribed by the [Sandiganbayan], and thus, he is deemed to have waived the [opportunity to present evidence]." 64 The foregoing shows that petitioner was not denied of his right to due process.

III

Petitioner is liable for indirect contempt. As found by the Sandiganbayan, he instructed Casas to write the contemptuous entry. His other arguments — that the amount was for legal fees and that the P2,000,000.00 check was encashed upon Tan's instructions — are questions of fact, which cannot be entertained by this Court in a Rule 45 petition. 65

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgments.

SO ORDERED.(Carpio, J., on official leave. Peralta, J., no part. Mendoza, J., Acting Chairperson. Tijam, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated June 28, 2017.)"

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 11-46.

2.Id. at 47-60. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada and concurred in by Associate Justices Norberto Y. Geraldez and Efren N. De La Cruz of the First Division, Sandiganbayan, Quezon City.

3.Id. at 61-85. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Jose R. Hernandez and concurred in by Associate Justices Alex L. Quiroz and Reynaldo P. Cruz of the Special Fourth Division, Sandiganbayan, Quezon City.

4.Id. at 41, Petition for Review.

5.Id. at 47 and 58-59, Sandiganbayan Resolution dated May 7, 2009.

6.Id. at 85, Sandiganbayan Resolution dated September 29, 2016.

7.Id. at 62.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 63.

10.Id. at 86-87, Sandiganbayan First Division Minutes of the proceedings held on June 26, 2007.

11.Id. at 87.

12.Id. at 86.

13.Id. at 86-87. The Resolution was approved by Presiding Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro (Chairperson; now Associate Justice of this Court) and Associate Justices Diosdado M. Peralta (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Efren N. Dela Cruz, of the First Division.

14.Id. at 87.

15.Id. at 65.See footnote no. 9, the Order was signed by Presiding Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Associate Justices Diosdado M. Peralta (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Efren N. Dela Cruz.

16.Id.See footnote no. 11, the Resolution was signed by Associate Justices Diosdado M. Peralta (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court), Rodolfo A. Ponferrada, and Efren N. Dela Cruz, of the First Division.

17.Id.

18.Id. at 48.

19.Id. at 66.

20.Id. at 50.

21.Id. at 66.

22.Id. at 49, Sandiganbayan Resolution dated May 7, 2009.

23.Id.

24.Id.

25.Id. at 66, Sandiganbayan Resolution dated September 29, 2016.

26.Id. at 47-60.

27.Id. at 56-57.

28.Id. at 57-58.

29.Id. at 58.

30.Id. at 58-59.

31.Id. at 70.

32.Id. at 73.

33.Id.

34.Id. at 130-183.

35.Id. at 184-191.

36.Id. at 61.

37.Id. at 61-62 and 85.

38.Id. at 72.

39.Id. at 74.

40.Id. at 74-75.

41.Id.

42.Id. at 78.

43.Id. at 85.

44.Id. at 11-46.

45.Id. at 41.

46.Id. at 19-25.

47.Id. at 25-32.

48.Id. at 206-207. The Board of Directors approved a resolution, which stated:

RESOLVED, as it hereby is resolved, that PHC advance in favor of Philcomsat and POTC the amount necessary for the payment of the legal fees for the cases involving Philcomsat and POTC as presented to the Board (as mentioned above) and such further legal fees and expenses as may from time to time be incurred by Philcomsat and POTC in connection therewith or any new cases involving the disputes with the Africa Group, and in this connection, Messrs. Enrique L. Locsin and Philip G. Brodett, be, as each of them hereby is, authorized and directed to sign, execute and deliver such documents or instruments, and to do all acts or things as may [be] required or necessary to implement the foregoing.

49.Id. at 32.

50.Id. at 32-38.

51.Id. at 38, Petition for Review, and 53, Sandiganbayan Resolution dated May 7, 2009.

52.Id. at 70-72.

53.Id. at 72-73.

54.Id. at 73.

55. 511 Phil. 510 (2005) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].

56.Id. at 520-521.

57. 535 Phil. 540 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].

58.Id. at 554-555.

59. 601 Phil. 676 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].

60.Id. at 687.

61.Rollo, pp. 78-79.

62.Id. at 81.

63.Id.

64.Id. at 82.

65.See Limso v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 158622, January 27, 2016, 782 SCRA 137, 239-240 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division], citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, 724 Phil. 276, 284-285 (2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].