Odejar v. Office of the Ombudsman

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251584. October 6, 2021.]

LUCILLE E. ODEJAR, petitioner, vs.OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 251584 (Lucille E. Odejar, Petitioner, v. Office of the Ombudsman, Respondent.) — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks the reversal of the Decision 2 dated 17 June 2019 and Resolution 3 dated 22 January 2020 of the Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 152615, affirming the Decision 4 dated 04 December 2014 of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) in Case No. OMB-C-A-11-0405-G. The OMB found petitioner Lucille E. Odejar (Odejar) and other officials of the Department of Agriculture (DA) guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposed upon them the penalty of dismissal from service, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service.

Antecedents

The following findings of fact are not disputed:

On [03 February 2004], the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) No. E-04-00164 amounting to P728,000,000.00 with the corresponding Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) No. 222447-1 amounting to P291,200,000.00 intended for the GMA-Farm Inputs and Farm Implements Program (FIFAP). * The DA transferred the fund (P728M) to its Regional Field Units (RFUs) through the issuance of Advice of Sub-Allotments (ASA) with the corresponding Notice of Transfer Allocation (NTA). From the RFUs, several funds were transferred to various Local Government Units (LGUs), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and/or People's Organizations as requested and identified by the proponents.

* Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.

[House Representative] Abraham B. Mitra of the second district of Palawan received the amount of P3 million from the said fund supposedly for the supply and delivery of various farm inputs in his district. On [20 February 2004], he wrote a letter to DA-Regional Field Unit IV (DA-RFU IV) Executive Director Dennis Araullo that his office has endorsed Gabaymasa Foundation, Inc. (Gabaymasa), an [NGO], to be the recipient for the implementation of the P3 Million fund allocation.

On [10 March 2004], the DA-RFU IV, represented by Araullo and [House Representative] Mitra entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Gabaymasa's president Margie Tajon Luz for the implementation of the project. Under the MOA, the fund transfer to Gabaymasa shall either be a) in full upon 100% completion of the project; or b) by tranches, in compliance with Commission on Audit Circular No. 95-003 dated [15 February 1995]. Thereafter, the DA-RFU IV released the amounts of P1,950,000.00 through Check No. 0206575 dated [22 April 2004] and P1,050,000.00 through Check No. 0275313 dated [29 December 2004] or a total of P3 million to Gabaymasa for the procurement and delivery of fertilizers from B.T. Mangrubang Enterprises (BTME). Notably, the said procurement of fertilizers did not go through the required public bidding.

On [18 April 2011], the Field Investigation Office of the OMB filed a criminal complaint charging [Odejar] along with [House Representative] Mitra, DA-RFU IV Executive Director Araullo, DA-RAFU IV Accountant Raymundo E. Braganza, DA-RFU IV Technical Directors Gregorio O. Sangalang and Balagtas J. Torres and the officers of Gabaymasa with violation of Sec. 3, pars. (e) and (g) of RA [3019] or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and Art. 217 or malversation of public funds under the Revised Penal Code, as amended. They were also charged administratively with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in connection with the disbursement/release or misuse of the P3 million fund to Gabaymasa. The complaint alleged, among others, that the release of the funds to Gabaymasa should have been disallowed due to the following:

1. The existence of Gabaymasa is doubtful because it cannot be found in the given address, and said address is listed as the residence of its president Margie Tajon Luz.

2. The existence of BTME is doubtful because it does not conduct business in its given address and it has no capacity to supply P5 million worth of farm inputs and farm implements — having only a capitalization of P50,000.00. Also, the Income Tax Return of BTME from 2004 does not reflect the P5 million gross sales of the company.

3. The official receipts, invoice, delivery receipts and other pertinent documents issued by BTME are fictitious and appear to be falsified.

4. The prescribed accounting and auditing guidelines under COA Circular No. 96-003 on the release of fund assistance to [NGOs] and [POs] were not observed.

5. The DA-RFU IV and the office of [House Representative] Mitra failed to conduct the proper verification and validation given that Gabaymasa did not meet the accreditation requirements under COA Circular No. 96-003, particularly the submission of the following: a) certification of registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission and/or the Cooperative Development Authority or the Department of Labor; b) financial statements for three (3) years of operation; c) proof that it had previously implemented similar projects; and d) list of projects it has previously undertaken. 5

The administrative complaint, eventually docketed as OMB-C-A-11-0405-G, imputed liability on the following officials based on their respective participation: 6

 

[House Representative] Mitra	Endorsed and entered into a MOA with Gabaymasa; signed the falsified delivery receipt, inspection report and certificate of acceptance which form part of the anomalous transaction amounting to P3 Million
Executive Director Araullo	Signed the two (2) disbursement vouchers approving the release and transfer of funds to Gabaymasa in the total amount of P3 Million
Regional Technical Director Sangalang	Affixed his signature in Box A of the disbursement voucher representing the amount of P1,950,000.00 certifying that the expenses and advances were necessary, lawful, and incurred under his direct supervision
Regional Technical Director Torres	Affixed his signature in Box A of the disbursement voucher representing the amount of P1,050,000.00 certifying that the expenses and advances were necessary, lawful, and incurred under his direct supervision
Regional Accountant Braganza	Signed Box B of the two disbursement vouchers representing the amount of P1,950,000.00 and P1,050,000.00, certifying that the supporting documents to the vouchers were complete and proper
Odejar	Affixed her initials on the disbursement voucher showing that she was responsible for checking whether the attachments therein were complete

 

At the time in question, Odejar was Regional Administrative Officer of DA-RFU IV. By virtue of Special Order No. 57-B dated 15 September 2003, she was designated Legislative Coordinator of the DA Regions IV-A, IV-B and NCR. 7

In her Counter-Affidavit, 8 Odejar sought the dismissal of the complaint for being fatally flawed and in violation of her right to speedy disposition of cases. According to her, not only was the Complaint unsigned and with a flawed Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, the cases were filed in July 2011 "or about seven (7) years after the questioned transaction or contract took place and more than five (5) years after [the OMB] had known of the Fertilizer Fund Scam." 9 She claimed that the delay, which was not at all attributable to her, was unjustified, inordinate and capricious, considering that the OMB already had in its possession all information and documents from which the cases were culled. 10

Nevertheless, Odejar categorically denied that she connived with any person relative to the contracts and transactions in question and claimed that she was merely a victim of circumstances. 11 She averred that her participation in the questioned transactions was clerical, limited as it was to the preparation of the disbursement vouchers (by indicating therein the attached documents and the fund allocation of then House Representative Mitra to which the P3 Million was charged). Odejar maintained that: (1) she signed the vouchers in her capacity as Legislative Coordinator; 12 (2) she was not involved in the selection of Gabaymasa to assist in the implementation of House Representative Mitra's project; 13 (3) Sangalang, Torres, and Braganza were the ones who certified that the expenses were necessary, lawful and incurred under their direct supervision and that the supporting documents were complete and proper; 14 and (4) House Representative Mitra was the one who identified not only the beneficiaries of the P3 Million fund but also Gabaymasa as the implementing NGO. 15

Odejar also argued that her signature was not necessary for the approval of the disbursement and/or transaction and that mere affixing of her initials therein does not automatically mean that she was part of any conspiracy. In any case, she insisted that the release of funds to Gabaymasa was proper insofar as, based on the documents submitted by Gabaymasa at the time, "everything appear[ed] to be above-board based on the MOA and the guidelines issued for the purpose." 16

Ruling of the OMB

In its Decision dated 04 December 2014, 17 the OMB found substantial evidence of guilt against Odejar (and her co-respondents Araullo, Braganza, Sangalang and Torres) for Grave Misconduct. 18 The dispositive portion of said Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, this office finds respondents Dennis B. Araullo, Raymundo E. Braganza, Gregorio O. Sangalang, Balagtas J. Torres, and Lucille E. Odejar guilty of Grave Misconduct and are meted with the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, which shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits except for accrued leave benefits, and perpetual special disqualification for reemployment in the government service. 19 (Underscoring supplied.)

According to the OMB, respondents therein were "grossly remiss in their obligation to ensure proper utilization of the P3M fertilizer fund" when "[t]hey allowed Gabaymasa to take the [P3M] funds, sans the required reportorial conditions specified under the MOA and despite the latter's lack of qualifications for accreditation as a partner NGO [vis-à-vis] the requirements of COA Circular No. 96-003." 20 In specific relation to Odejar, the OMB declared:

Although not a signatory in the vouchers, Odejar's initials therein would show that she was responsible for checking whether the attachments on the [disbursement vouchers] are complete. As a legislative coordinator, Odejar likewise facilitated the transfer of funds to Gabaymasa by acting as a liaison to the Office of Respondent Mitra and to Gabaymasa.

These separate acts or omissions of respondents contributed in the end result of defrauding the government in the amount of [P]3M. Without any one of these acts and omissions, the end result would not have been achieved.

Clearly, respondents were obliged under the MOA to put up effective safeguards for the monitoring of the project identified by the proponent and to undertake corrective measures in the event of misappropriation of the [P]3M funds. However, they have been lax and grossly remiss in their administrative duties. To us, these grave lapses of respondents which were perpetrated with a unity of design are tantamount to a serious breach of duty, a classic example of corrupt intent and willful transgression of the laws. 21

Aggrieved, Odejar filed a Motion for Reconsideration 22 citing the Decision dated 26 April 2013 issued by the OMB in OMB-C-A-11-0222-E, absolving her of administrative liability involving a P5 Million fund released to then House Representative Eduardo C. Zialcita of Parañaque whose project was also undertaken by Gabaymasa. 23 There, Odejar was charged in her capacity as Legislative Coordinator for DA-RFU IV (i.e., in the same manner, nature and extent that she participated in this case.) She also claimed "a total absence of supporting facts and evidence" and that "except for a generalized statement and unsubstantiated allegation of conspiracy," the assailed Decision failed to show [Odejar's] having conspired with anyone to commit the supposed irregularities, how she facilitated the submission of incomplete documents to the DA or the transfer of funds to Gabaymasa, or acted as liaison to Gabaymasa. 24

The OMB, in an Order dated 28 June 2015, 25 denied Odejar's motion. It maintained that "as a specially designated legislative coordinator of the fertilizer funds, [Odejar] had the concomitant duty to check and validate[,] at the first instance, the completeness and validity of the said documents attached to support the disbursement of the funds; and that if something goes awry, she should inform [her] superiors." 26 Her signatures on the disbursement vouchers, while not required, essentially operated "as a concurrence to the certification" of her co-respondents whose signatures were necessary for disbursement purposes. 27

Ruling of the CA

The CA, on appeal, affirmed the OMB's findings. In its assailed Decision dated 17 June 2019, the CA found that Odejar "had the specific duty to check for completeness and validate the documents attached to support the disbursement of public funds." 28 It also held that Odejar was an "accountable officer" whose signature "would not have been required if not to complete the transactions" and that "no disbursement or release of government funds could have been possible without her tacit approval and participation." 29

The CA likewise rejected Odejar's argument that the dismissal of similar charges against her justifies her exoneration in this case on the ground that the doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, "not to the exercise of administrative powers." 30

Hence, this present recourse by Odejar.

On 02 September 2020, this Court issued a Resolution 31 requiring the OMB to file its Comment to the petition. Accordingly, the OMB, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed its Comment 32 dated 18 April 2018. On 26 January 2021, we received Odejar's Motion for Leave to File Reply to [the OMB's] Comment. 33

Issue

The Court is now asked to resolve whether the CA erred in affirming the OMB's Decision in OMB-C-A-11-0405-G finding Odejar guilty of Grave Misconduct.

Ruling of the Court

The Petition is meritorious.

While it is the consistent and general policy of the Court not to interfere with the OMB's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutorial powers, and its findings of fact are generally accorded respect, we may not be bound by such findings when, as will be subsequently shown, there is absolutely no evidence in support thereof or such evidence is clearly, manifestly and patently insubstantial. 34

Here, the OMB found Odejar guilty of Grave Misconduct. Under Section 46 (A) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, this is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service. The CA affirmed the OMB ruling on the basis of its finding that Odejar was an "accountable officer" with a "specific duty to check for completeness and validate the documents attached to support the disbursement of public funds." 35

Odejar, for her part, vehemently denies that she had the "legal duty, administrative competence, or mandated responsibility to check, review, evaluate and verify the completeness, validity, genuineness, and correctness of the supporting documents to the subject Disbursement Vouchers." 36 She claims that her duties as Legislative Coordinator were clerical and that her signatures on the subject disbursement vouchers were merely affixed thereto "for purposes of budgetary or fund control and monitoring the availability of funds[.]" 37

We agree with Odejar.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. It is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, the misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. 38 For misconduct to be considered grave, there must be clear evidence of corruption, a clear intent to violate the law or flagrantly disregard an established rule. 39

To hold a public official liable for misconduct, the acts or omissions for which he/she was charged must be of direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his/her duties, and the same must be willful or intentional. 40Both elements were not proven to be present in this case.

Here, Odejar was designated as the Legislative Coordinator for DA Regions IV-A, IV-B and NCR under Special Order No. 57-B dated 15 September 2003. As Legislative Coordinator, she had the following specific functions:

(1) Establish closer linkage with the House of Representatives;

(2) Coordinate various agricultural programs and projects for unified and better service delivery to the countryside;

(3) Provide assistance in the identification of feasible agricultural development projects for inclusion in the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of the Southern Tagalog Congressional Representatives; and

(4) Perform other duties that may be assigned by the Regional Executive Director. 41

Clearly, there is nothing in Special Order No. 57-B which specifically tasked Odejar with duties related to the handling or disbursement of government funds. The MOA signed by House Representative Mitra and Executive Director Araullo was also clear that Odejar had no hand in the selection of Gabaymasa as partner NGO for the project; Gabaymasa, whose existence was reportedly put in issue by the COA, was specifically selected and endorsed by House Representative Mitra to assist in the implementation of the proposed project. 42

Relatedly, we disagree with the CA's finding that Odejar was an accountable officer which makes her responsible in case of illegal use or disbursement of funds. Under the law, an accountable officer refers to an officer of any government agency "whose duties permit or require the possession or custody of government funds or property" and who "shall be accountable therefor and for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with law." 43 A careful examination of the disbursement vouchers in question would immediately show that Odejar was not among the named officials whose signatures were required for disbursement purposes. Rather, the names that appear on the boxes reserved for the required signatories are those of Araullo (for approval of payment), Braganza (for certification that the supporting documents are complete and proper), and Sangalang and Torres (for certification that the expenses/advances are necessary, lawful, and incurred under their direct supervision). 44

We thus find Odejar's explanation as to her participation in the questioned transaction (e.g., that it was merely clerical and limited to the preparation of the disbursement vouchers by indicating the attached documents and the fund allocation to which the expenses are to be charged) to be credible and consistent with her express tasks as Legislative Coordinator. 45

Although the OMB, in its Decision, conceded that Odejar was not a signatory in the vouchers and that the task of inspecting and verifying the supporting documents properly pertained to Braganza as the Regional Accountant, 46 it still held Odejar responsible for the correctness, genuineness, and completeness of the attachments based solely on her act of affixing her initials therein. 47 This is simply contrary to this Court's consistent ruling that not every person who signs or initials documents in the course of transit through standard operating procedures automatically becomes a conspirator in a crime which transpired at a stage where he had no participation. 48There must be positive proof of his/her knowledge of, and active participation in, the alleged conspiracy. Mere fact of signature on a voucher as it is going the rounds does not necessarily follow that the said person becomes part of a conspiracy in an illegal scheme. 49

In Office of the Ombudsman v. De Guzman, 50 this Court upheld the exoneration of a public official due to the OMB's failure to establish corrupt motive and declared:

xxx xxx xxx

Intentions involve a state of mind, which is difficult to decipher. Nevertheless, the true intent of the offender may be ascertained through his/her subsequent and contemporaneous acts, together with the evidentiary facts. In cases involving administrative liability for grave misconduct, the Court ruled in GSIS v. Mayordomo that the element of corruption is present when the public officer unlawfully or wrongfully uses his or her position to procure some benefit at the expense of another. In Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon v. Dionisio, we held that there is clear intent to violate the rules when the public officers are aware of the existing rules, yet they intentionally chose to disobey them. In Imperial, Jr. v. GSIS, the Court required establishing the public officer's propensity to ignore the rules as clearly manifested in his or her actions to constitute flagrant disregard of the rules. 51

In this case, apart from Odejar's initials appearing on the subject disbursement vouchers, no other evidence was presented to prove that she had knowledge of, much less actively participated in, any fraudulent scheme that may have been perpetrated by other government officials and/or employees with regard to the P3 Million Fund subject of this case. Neither was there showing that Odejar was motivated by a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules. Her initials on the subject vouchers, without more, cannot be the sole basis to conclude that she intentionally took part in a conspiracy to defraud the government as to make her liable for Grave Misconduct. 52

Moreover, Odejar points to three (3) other separate, but closely related, administrative cases (involving Odejar) that were also offshoots of the investigation conducted into the Fertilizer Fund Scam:

(1) OMB-C-A-11-0222-E involved the disbursement of the P5 Million fertilizer fund allotted to the lone District of Parañaque, as represented by former [House Representative] Eduardo C. Zialcita; 53

(2) OMB-C-A-11-0394-G concerned the disbursement of the P5 Million fund allotted to the Third District of Quezon Province, then represented by Representative Aleta C. Suarez; 54 and

(3) OMB-C-A-11-0777-L on the disbursement of the cash allocation of P2 Million to the Municipal Government of Tanay under then Mayor Tomas Ricardo A. Tanjautco. 55

It appears that Odejar was similarly implicated in these cases on account of her participation as Legislative Coordinator. 56 It is well to note that these cases were dismissed (as against Odejar) for lack of substantial evidence.

On the whole, Odejar's case reminds us of Umipig v. People. 57 There, the Court found no basis to hold respondent Fontanilla-Payabyab liable inasmuch as her signature on the vouchers were not part of standard operating procedure:

As to Fontanilla-Payabyab, her signature appears on the questioned vouchers above her name which was stamped on the vouchers together with the statement "FUND AVAILABILITY," and not in Boxes A, B or C. Such signature, however, neither validates nor invalidates the vouchers and this was not disputed by Mabitad who testified that Fontanilla-Payabyab's signature as budget officer on the disbursement vouchers is not considered part of standard operating procedure.

Although Fontanilla-Payabyab was the Head of Finance with Mabitad as one of her subordinates, the prosecution failed to establish that her responsibilities include reviewing her subordinate's certifications in disbursement vouchers. As Fontanilla-Payabyab's signature on the voucher was a mere superfluity, it is unnecessary for this Court to make a determination of negligence on her part. Her purpose in doing so, i.e., to monitor the budget allocated and utilized/disbursed, is likewise immaterial considering that her act of signing the voucher did not directly cause the damage or injury. Consequently, there is no basis to hold her liable x x x (Emphases supplied.)

Odejar's participation in this case is no different in that her duties did not specifically include reviewing the documents or certifying their correctness or genuineness; her signature did not validate or invalidate the vouchers and was not shown to be part of standard operating procedure. Overall, her act of signing was a mere superfluity and did not directly cause the alleged damage or injury. We see no reason not to apply the foregoing ruling to her case.

Finally, in Joson III v. Commission on Audit, 58 we held that in the absence of any clear showing of malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith, good faith is always presumed. This Court finds the evidence on record purportedly proving Odejar's liability grossly insufficient to overcome the presumption of good faith. Taking all these together with Odejar's claim that this is the first administrative complaint against her in her thirty-seven (37) years of government service, 59 there is, to our mind, no misconduct, simple or grave, that warrants any disciplinary action. 60 aScITE

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 17 June 2019 and Resolution dated 22 January 2020 in CA-G.R. SP No. 152615 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint against LUCILLE E. ODEJAR in Case No. OMB-C-A-11-0405-G is DISMISSED for lack of substantial evidence.

SO ORDERED." (Dimaampao, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2839.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 22-66.

2. Id. at 71-83; Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig of the Ninth (9th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

3. Id. at 86.

4. Id. at 161-174.

5. Id. at 7-10.

6. Id. at 165-166, 201-202.

7. Id. at 232.

8. Id. at 205-229.

9. Id. at 206.

10. Id.

11. Id. at 218.

12. Id. at 210.

13. Id.

14. Id. at 210-211.

15. Id. at 212.

16. Id. at 212, 214-217.

17. Id. at 161-174.

18. Id. at 162; The administrative complaint against House Representative Mitra was dropped in view of his election on May 2010 as Governor of Palawan.

19. Id. at 172-173.

20. Id. at 170.

21. Id. at 172.

22. Id. at 182-190.

23. Id. at 183.

24. Id. at 189.

25. Id. at 175-181.

26. Id. at 178.

27. Id. at 178-179.

28. Id. at 16.

29. Id.

30. Id. at 17.

31. Id. at 312-313.

32. Id. at 147-157.

33. Id. at 343-354.

34. Office of the Ombudsman v. Capulong, 729 Phil. 553 (2014), G.R. No. 201643, 12 March 2014 [Per J. Reyes].

35. Rollo, p. 16.

36. Id. at 29-30.

37. Id. at 29-32.

38. Duque v. Calpo, A.M. No. P-16-3505, 22 January 2019 [Per Curiam].

39. In re Tiongson, 731 Phil. 61 (2014), B.M. No. 2482, 01 April 2014 [Per J. Carpio].

40. Rejas v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 241576 & 241623, 03 November 2020 [Per J. Caguioa].

41. Rollo, p. 232.

42. Id. at 233-235.

43. Section 50, Chapter 9, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of Executive Order (EO) No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987 [25 July 1987] and Section 101 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1445, or the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines [11 June 1978]; Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code; Loreño v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 242901, 14 September 2020 [Per J. Delos Santos]; Rueda, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 400 Phil. 142 (2000), G.R. No. 129064, 29 November 2000 [Per J. Pardo].

44. Rollo, pp. 230-231.

45. Id. at 210.

46. Id. at 172.

47. Id. at 166, 172.

48. Linsangan v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 234260, 01 July 2020 [Per J. Inting], citing Albert v. Gangan, 406 Phil. 231 (2001), G.R. No. 126557, 06 March 2001 [Per J. Bueno].

49. Albert v. Gangan, supra.

50. G.R. No. 214327 (Notice), 03 May 2021.

51. Supra; Citations omitted.

52. See Macairan v. People, G.R. Nos. 215104, 215120, 215147, 215212, 215354-55, 215377, 215923 & 215541, 18 March 2021 [Per J. Caguioa].

53. Rollo, pp. 242-253.

54. Id. at 255-275.

55. Id. at 278-306.

56. Id. at 246, 250, 253, 264-265, 291-292, 305.

57. 691 Phil. 272 (2012), G.R. Nos. 171359, 171755 & 171776, 18 July 2012 [Per J. Villarama].

58. 820 Phil. 485 (2017), G.R. No. 223762, 07 November 2017 [Per J. Tijam].

59. Rollo, pp. 57-63.

60. See Pobra-Holgado v. Pader-Villanueva (Notice), A.C. No. 11604, 07 June 2017.