Am - 14 11 350 RTC - 2017 PDF
Am - 14 11 350 RTC - 2017 PDF
Am - 14 11 350 RTC - 2017 PDF
g,upreme Q!:ourt
;fflanila
EN BANC
Promulgated:
December 5, 2017
x-----------------------------------~+:\-~~-~---x
DECISION
The present administrative matter arose from the judicial audit conducted
on March 12 and 13, 2013, of Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental, then presided by Judge Bonifacio M.
Macabaya (Judge Macabaya).
In a Memorandum 1 dated April 17, 2013, the audit team found that out of
the 573 cases examined by it, (1) 69 cases were submitted for decision but have
yet to be decided despite the lapse of the 90-day period [as mandated by par. 1, u~
•
••
On official leave.
On leave.
/v---
1
Rollo, pp. 1-35.
Decision 2 A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution]; 2 (2) 33 cases with pending
incidents were not yet resolved despite the lapse of the reglementary period to
resolve them; and (3) 155 cases were dormant and unacted upon for a considerable
length of time.
Moreover, the audit team noted inaccuracies in the RTC's February 2013
report. It failed to include 43 cases already submitted for decision and 13 cases
5
with unresolved motions, while it prematurely reported six cases as submitted for
decision, although the records did not show that the appellees received the
appellants' briefs or memoranda, against which the prescribed period within
which to submit the formers' briefs or memoranda should be reckoned. 6 These
omissions and inaccuracies in the report ~iolated paragraph 8 of the Guidelines
and Instructions in Administrative Circular No. 61-2001 dated December 10,
2001, which state that "(i)nfilling up Item No. VI xx x where all the data needed
must be indicated, include all cases with unresolved motions which may determine
the disposition of the cases, e.g., Motion to Dismiss on Demurrer to Evidence.
Patent non-indication of undecided cases or unresolved motions is tantamount to
falsification ofofficial document.~
Section 15. (I) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved
within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
(Emphasis supplied)
Rollo, p. 27.
4
Id. at28.
See id. Namely Civil Case No. 2011-174, Criminal Case Nos. 4819, 2010-961, 2010-1037, 2011-772 and
2011-909.
6
Id. at27.
Decision 3 A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
In addition, the audit team discovered that the docket books for civil cases
were not updated regularly; the docket inventory for the period July-December
2012 suffered from a number of defects in form; and, there was no judgment
book, no book of entries of judgment, nor an execution book. 7
The audit team furthermore noted the constant presence and active
participation of Judge Macabaya's wife during the entire judicial audit although
she was not a court employee. She was observed to be handing over case records
to, and talking with, the court staff. When this matter was brought to the attention
of Judge Macabaya, the latter assured the audit team that he was in full control of
the actions of his wife, and even acknowledged ''that she has been a big help xx x
[in] overseeing the administrative functions of his office, [thus allowing] him to
focus his attention on his judicial functions." 8
The audit team noted that the action plan provided for a single strategy only
and an inflexible time frame for the disposition of three kinds of cases. 12 Hence,
the audit team recommended that the Action Plan be revised to make it more
specific and more results-oriented for easier measurement of output.
xx xx
7
Id. at 28-29.
Rollo, p. 30.
9
Id. at 36.
10
Id. at 38-43.
11
Id.at37.
12
See id at 44. Namely: cases submitted for decision, cases with incidents or motions for resolution and cases
for ex-parte presentation of evidence.
~
1.4 ENSURE that a request for extension of time to decide a case is filed
with the Office of the Court Administrator before the expiration of the
mandated period for decision, x x x;
1.8 COMMENT in writing on the observations raised in Item No. II, Sub-
item Nos. 1 and 2 above, and SUBMIT the same to this Office within
fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof;
1.9 DISCOURAGE and MINIMIZE his wife's presence in his court, and
PREVENT her from interfering with the business of the court with a
WARNING that any violation thereof will warrant an administrative
action against him; and
1 1.10 SUBMIT to this Office within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof a
written report on the action/s taken on the immediately preceding
directive;
13
xxxx
But in a letter14 dated July 22, 2013, Judge Macabaya and his Branch Clerk
of Court, Atty. Macabinlar, merely submitted copies of the Decisions and Orders
in SOple of the cases enumerated in the April 17, 2013 Memorandum; and this was
done despite the passage of almost 10 months. Thus, in a letter-directive 15 to. /L
Judge Macabaya dated March 14, 2014, Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) ff P~
13
Id. at 32-33. /
14
Id. at 243-248.
15
Jc!. at 289.
Decision 5 A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
In reply thereto, on May 12, 2014, Judge Macabaya attached another set of
copies of orders, resolutions, and decisions, without any other explanation other
than the inadvertent attachment of the letter-directive to the RTC's October 2013
monthly report. 16
17
Via a Letter dated May 19, 2014, one month after the deadline set in the
action plan, DCA Aldecoa-Delorino gave an updated summary on the number of
cases that had not yet been decided or resolved, and acted upon. This letter
likewise reiterated the directive for Judge Macabaya to comply with the audit
team's Memorandum, particularly item nos. 2, 3, 8 and 9, with a reminder that "all
directives coming from the Court Administrator and his deputies are issued in the
exercise of the Court's administrative supef1lision of trial courts and their
personnel, hence, should be respected These directives are not mere requests but
should be complied with promptly and completely. " 18 Thus, DCA Aldecoa-
Delorino directed Judge Macabaya to:
1. EXPLAIN x x x the delay in: (a) deciding the remaining thirty [30] cases xx
x; (b) resolving the incidents in the remaining fifteen (15) cases listed x x x;
and (c) taking appropriate actions [on] the remaining fifty-seven [57]
dormant cases xx x; and SUBMIT the same to this Office within fifteen (15)
days from receipt hereof;
2. SUBMIT x x x within fifteen (15) from receipt hereof a copy of each of the
decisions, orders[,] or resolutions, if any, rendered or issued in the cases
referred to above; and
3. SUBMIT xx x within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof a written report
on the actions x x x taken on x x x the directives contained in our
Memorandum dated 19 April 2013 .19
16
Id. at 298.
17
Id. at 639-640.
18
Id. at 640. Italics in the original.
19 Id.
20
Id. at 641.
21 Id.
Decision 6 A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
4. DESIGNATE Judge Gil G. Bollozos, RTC, Br. 21, Cagayan de O~~ ..,a.._///
City, Misamis Oriental, Acting Presiding Judge ofRTC, Br. 20, Cagayan de Oryvv C""'
22
Counting from the Memorandum dated April 19, 2013 reiterating the recommendations in the audit team's
April 17, 2013 Memorandum to the Resolution dated December 1, 2014.
Decision 7 A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
City, Misamis Oriental, effective immediately and to continue until further orders
from the Court, x x x and
On March 16, 2015, this Court referred Judge Macabaya's (1) motion for
reconsideration/explanation dated February 16, 2015; (2) supplemental
explanation to the motion for reconsideration dated February 27, 2015, and(~~ ~
recapitulative statement with urgent reiterative motion to lift the suspension /v-"'~
23
Rollo, pp. 722-723.
24
Id. at 725-736, sans Annexes.
25
Id. at 732.
26
Id. at 843-854.
27
Id. at 845.
28
ld. at 847.
29
Id. at 851.
30 Id.
31
Id. at 883-891.
32
Id. at 889.
Decision 8 A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
administrative and judicial function and the release of salaries, benefits and
emoluments dated March 4, 2015, to the OCA for evaluation, report, and
33
recommendation.
The OCA explained that Judge Macabaya and his court staff never
questioned the findings and observations of the audit team; and that Judge
Macabaya even undertook to decide all the cases/incidents listed in the audit
findings within one year from April 2013. The OCA noted that in all five of his
letters-compliance with the April 19, 2013 Memorandum of the OCA, Judge
Macabaya never took issue with such findings, but instead merely submitted
copies of his Decisions and Orders on the cases submitted for decision in his
sala. 37 Needless to say, the derelictions imputed against Judge Macabaya
constituted insubordination, disrespect, and disdain against the authority of this
Court, as these acts stemmed from his deliberate failure to comply with the
directives of the OCA - which directives contained the command to "be complied
38
with promptly and completely." The OCA likewise noted the officious
interference of Judge Macabaya's wife in the court's functions - an observation
that was never refuted by Judge Macabaya; this, in tum, further tarnished Judge
Macabaya's already compromised integrity. 39
Lastly, the OCA affirmed the findings of the audit team that Judge
Macabaya's Order dated November 22, 2011 in Criminal Case No. 2001-888,40
and his twin Orders dated September 26, 2006 in Criminal Case Nos. 2000-260,41
2000-316 and 2000-098, were clearly violative of the Constitution and~~ la~
42 43
thus rendering Judge Macabaya guilty of ignorance of the law and procedure/VV' ~
33
Id. at 892.
34
Id. at 893-920.
35
Id.at916.
36 Id.
37
Id. at 904.
38
Id. at 912.
39
Id. at 91 I.
40
Entitled People v. Jabinao.
41
Entitled People v. Alba.
42
Entitled People v. Alba.
43
Entitled People v. Alba.
Decision 9 A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
Issue
Our Ruling
We adopt and agree with the OCA' s findings but with modification as
regards the recommended penalty.
Judge Macabaya claimed that the audit team made vague and sweeping
accusations that were allegedly meant to mislead and misinform the Court about
44
the status of cases pending before his sala. He also insisted that the
administrative charges against him were made without notice and hearing, hence
violative of his right to due process. Judge Macabaya moreover assailed the
Report/Memorandum dated April 17, 2013, saying that the 264-working day-
period requiring him to decide or resolve 168 cases was unrealistic due to ( 1) the
cases' voluminous records, (2) his sala's receipt of 761 new cases upon his
assumption into office, (3) his appointment as acting presiding judge of the RTC
Branch 9 in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, (4) the assignment to his court of other
cases from other courts caused by the inhibition of other judges, and (5) his busy
schedule of hearings.45 Lastly, Judge Macabaya maintained that as much as he
was willing to decide the 12 remaining cases that he had inherited, he was unable
to do so because of the conflagration that gutted the records in the Hall of Justice
ofCagayan de Oro.46
We find it surprising that throughout the breadth and length of the space
and time that were accorded to him as shown in the OCA' s ( 1) Memorandum
dated April 19, 2013, (2) the letter dated March 14, 2014, and (3) the letter dated
May 19, 2014, Judge Macabaya never protested against the validity or correctness
of the judicial audit's findings. Interestingly, it was only after this Court resolved
on December 1, 2014 to withhold his salaries and benefits that he started to
question the audit findings. However, his assertion that the audit findings were
incorrect or baseless, is self-serving and lacked ~ence vis-a-vis the clear-cut and
well-supported findings of the audit team./~~
44
See rollo, p. 843.
45
Id. at 849-850.
46
Id. at 851.
.
'
Judge Macabaya' s woeful lamentation that his right to due process had
been violated fails to persuade. It is axiomatic that due process requires nothing
else but the opportunity to be heard - by no means does it require a formal, trial-
type hearing. Thus we held in FIO Ledesma v. Court ofAppeals:47
Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations
require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified
of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself.
In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable
opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him
constitute the minimum requirements of due process. The essence of due process
is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity
to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or
ruling complained of.
system. x x x54
The records disclose that Judge Macabaya utterly failed to decide the cases
submitted for decision or resolve pending incidents within the reglementary period
as well as within the time frame that he himself fixed in the initial Action Plan. As
noted during the audit, these cases were already deemed submitted for decision
much further beyond the period55 allowed by the Constitution and by statute. In
Re: Judicial Audit of the RTC, Br. 14, Zamboanga City, 56 we cited Rule 3.05 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct which underscores the need to speedily resolve
cases, thus:
The Supreme Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to
decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is
justice denied. Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period
fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the
parties to a speedy disposition of their cases.
The office of the judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the
Constitution and the law in the discharge of official duties. Section 15 (1 ), Article
VIII of the Constitution mandates that cases or matters filed with the lower courts
must be decided or resolved within three months from the date they are
submitted for decision or resolution. Moreover, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct directs judges to 'dispose of the court's business promptly
and decide cases within the required periods.' Judges must closely adhere to the
Code of Judicial Conduct in order to preserve the integrity, competence, and
independence of the judiciary and make the administration of justice more
efficient. Time and again, we have stressed the need to strictly observe this duty
so as not to negate our efforts to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the twin
problems of congestion and delay that have long plagued our courts. Finally,
Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics [exhort] judges to be prompt and
punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before
their courts, to wit:
6. PROMPlNESS
He should be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him,
remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied.
7. PUNCTUALITY
He should be punctual in the performance of his judicial duties,
recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses, and attorneys is of
value and that if the judge is unpunctual in his habits, he sets a bad
example to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction with the
administration ofjustice.
Nor is there merit in Judge Macabaya's claim that at the time his motion for
reconsideration was filed, there were only 11 to 12 cases left undecided or
unresolved, and that the period to decide or resolve these cases were within the
time extension he prayed for. 57 Judge Macabaya ought to know that requests for
extension of time are not always granted as a matter of course and, even if they
were, such requests for extension of time in no wise operate to absolve him from
administrative liability. Here, the records showed that Judge Macabaya asked for
additional time to resolve the cases submitted for decision only on June 30, 201458
and on November 24, 2014 59 - or 61 and 208 days respectively, past the deadline
that Judge Macabaya himself set in the action plan. The audit team even reminded
him to submit the request for extension of time before the mandated period to
decide would expire. 60 This, he failed to do.
Rabaya;64
c. Civil Case No. 1996-514 entitled PC! Leasing and Finance, Inc. v.
Sps. Lee; 65
h. LRC No. 1999-085, LRC No. 2000-039, and LRC No. 2006-020
all concerning Phividec Industrial Authority as the applicant; 70
o. CiEvil Case~~o.
2011-062 entitled Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc.
v. scauso;
64
See id. at 2.
65 Id.
66 Id.
67 Id.
68
See id. at 3-4.
69
See id. at 4.
70
See id. at 5. This is notwithstanding Judge Macabaya's Orders relating to LRC Nos. 2002-034, 2006-02, and
2006-005. See also id. at 20.
71
See id. at 6.
72
See id. at 12.
73 Id.
74
See id. at 13.
75 Id.
76 Id.
77
See id. at 15.
"
Decision 14 A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
78
p. Civil Case No. 2011-191 entitled Sps. Encinareal v. Hult, et al.;
Also, despite this Court's directive for Judge Macabaya to decide or resol~
91
Id. at 957-963.
92
Id. at 2104-2105.
93
Id. at 1080-1085.
94
Id. at 1084.
95
Id. at 167.
96
Id.
97
Id. at 6.
98
Id. at 237 and 237-A, respectively.
99
Id. at 238.
"
Decision 16 A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
the remaining cases/incidents that were included in the judicial audit, Judge
Macabaya failed to comply with the same. Even with Judge Macabaya's own
100
acquiescence that the remaining cases have to be resolved/acted upon by him,
he merely attached orders 101 issued by Acting Presiding Judge Gil G. Bollozos,
concerning cases under the former's responsibility in clear defiance of this Court's
mandate, to wit:
102
1. Civil Case No. 1998-325-R entitled Heirs ofYacapin v. Buhay;
This Court, in its Resolution 112 of July 20, 2004, had already clarified that
"[u]nless and until the Supreme Court directs otherwise, the lifetime or duration of
the effectivity of any bond issued in criminal and civil action/special proceedings,
or in any proceeding or incident therein shall be from its approval by the court
113
until the action or proceeding is finally decided, resolved or terminated."
Then again, in Criminal Case Nos. 2000-260 and 2000-316, both entitled
People v. Alba, and in Criminal Case Nos. 2002-098 and 2002-100, also entitled
People v. Alba, Judge Macabaya issued twin Orders directing his Branch Clerk of
Court ''to receive evidence of the prosecution through ex-parte hearing." 114
Nowhere in the Rules of Criminal Procedure are Clerks of Court allowed to
receive evidence ex-parte in criminal proceedings - unlike in ordinary civil actions
and in special proceedings where the judge may delegate such act to his Clerk of
115
Court. These orders clearly showed gross ignorance of the rules of procedure.
116
Thus, we held in Spouses Lago v. Judge Abu!, Jr.:
Though not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the law or of the
rules, and that, when committed in good faith, does not warrant administrative
sanction, the rule applies only in cases within the parameters of tolerable
misjudgment. When the law or the rule is so elementary, not to be aware of it or
to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. One who
accepts the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the court proficiency ~~
111
112
Id.at27. ~
A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC Guidelines on Corporate Surety Bonds.
113
Id., Item No. VII.
114
Rollo, p. 28.
115
See: Section 9, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court.
SECTION 9. Judge to Receive Evidence; Delegation to Clerk of Court. - The judge of the
court where the case is pending shall personally receive the evidence to be adduced by the parties.
However, in default or ex parte hearings, and in any case where the parties agree in writing, the
court may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court who is a member of the bar. The
clerk of court shall have no power to rule on objections to any question or to the admission of
exhibits, which objections shall be resolved by the court upon submission of his report and the
transcripts within ten (10) days from termination of the hearing.
116
654 Phil. 479, 491 (2011). Citations omitted.
"
Decision 18 A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
in the law, and the duty to maintain professional competence at all times. When a
judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the confidence
of the public in the courts. A judge is expected to keep abreast of the
developments and amendments thereto, as well as of prevailing jurisprudence.
Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of lltjustice.
(Underscoring supplied)
The audit team also noted that Judge Macabaya's wife meddled or interfered
with the court's business. Judge Macabaya, however, saw nothing wrong with
that, and even claimed that her presence helped him focus more on his judicial
functions. Apparently, Judge Macabaya seems to have missed the point of his
being the presiding Judge of his court; he seems to be unaware that this
unwholesome atmosphere can only further aggravate the court's already fractured
integrity and efficiency. It is not too much to say that the court's official business
117
is none of Mrs. Macabaya's officious business. In Gordon v. Judge Lilagan,
we said:
Although this Court has meted out the penalty of dismissal or forfeiture of
118
retirement benefits to judges who were found guilty of several infractions such
as in this case, we have nevertheless imposed lighter penalties towards members
of the bench when mitigating circumstances merit the same.
Also, this Court notes that in the four years Judge Macabaya was sitting as
Presiding Judge of Branch 20, 761 new cases were raffled to his sala. 121 At the
same time, he was appointed as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 9 of the RTC of
Malaybalay City, Bukidnon - some 93 kilometers away from his sala - to hear,
resolve and dispose of cases in that branch. 122 This is notwithstanding the
assignment of other cases from other courts where judges had inhibited and his
continuous hearings in his sala. 123
Lastly, this Court notes the fire that engulfed the Cagayan de Oro Hall of
124
Justice last January 30, 2015. Albeit beyond the prescribed period for Judge
Macabaya to act on the cases mentioned in the audit, this may have contributed to
the difficulty in disposing of or resolving the remaining cases under his
responsibility.
118
See Tuvil/o v. Judge Laron, A.M. Nos. MTJ-10-1755 and MTJ-10-1756, October 18, 2016; Re: Judicial
Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 20, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental, 730 Phil. 23 (2014); and
Samson v. Judge Caballero, 612 Phil. 737 (2009).
119
Bonifacio Mab>to Macabaya's Service Records.
120
A.M. No. 11-3803-RTJ dismissed on December 9, 2013; A.M. No. 11-3815-RTJ dismissed on November
11, 2012; A.M. No. 13-4082-RTJ dismissed on August 7, 2017; and A.M. No. 13-4097-RTJ dismissed on
July I8, 2014. Aside from the instant case, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2475 is still pending with this Court.
121
Rollo, p. 849.
122
See id. at 850.
123 Id.
124
Id. at 732. See also Fire hits Cagayan de Oro Hall of Justice, says Sereno
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/669282 l /fire-hits-c~an-de-oro-hall-of-justice-says-sereno (visited October
18, 2017).
Decision 19 A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
Although this Court has meted out the penalty of dismissal or forfeiture of
118
retirement benefits to judges who were frnmd guilty of several infractions such
as in this case, we have nevertheless imposed lighter penalties towards members
of the bench when mitigating circumstances merit the same.
Also, this Court notes that in the four years Judge Macabaya was sitting as
Presiding Judge of Branch 20, 761 new cases were raffled to his sala. 121 At the
same time, he ~as appointed as Acting Presiding Judge ofBranch 9 of the RTC of
Malaybalay Ci~, Bukidnon - some 93 kilometers away from his sala - to hear,
122
resolve and di$pose of cases in that branch. This is notwithstanding the
assignment of ~ther cases from other courts where judges had inhibited and his
.
contmuous herurngs
.,J; . hi s saIa. i 21-
m
!
I
Lastly, illis Court notes the fire that engulfed the Cagayan de Oro Hall of
124
Justice last January 31, 2015. Albeit beyond the prescribed period for Judge
Macabaya to act on the cases mentioned in the audit, this may have contributed to
the difficulty in disposing of or resolving the remaining cases under his
responsibility.
118
See Tuvillo v. Judge Laron. A.1\.t Nos. MTJ-10-1755 and MTJ-10-17.56, October 18, 2016, Re: .Judicial
Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 20, Cagayan de Oro Cit;~ Ivfisamis Oriental, 730 Phil. 23 (2014), and
Samson v. Judge Caballero, 612 Phil. 737 (2009).
119
Bonifacio Magto Macabaya's Service Records.
120
A.M. No. 11-3803-RTJ dismissed on December 9, 2013; A.M. No. I 1··3815-RTJ dismissed on November
l 1, 2012: A.M. No. 13-4082-RTT disrnissed on August 7, 2017; and A.M. No. 13-4097-RTJ dismissed on
July 18, 2014. Aside from the instant case, A.M, No. RTJ-16-2475 is still pending with this Court.
21
i Rollo, p. 849.
122
See id. at 850.
123 Id.
Td. at 732. See also Fire hits Cagayan de Oro Hali «f Justice, sr~vs Sereno
124
a. Judgment Book;
b. Book of Entries; and
c. Execution Book.
Failure to comply with any of the directives set herein shall constitute open
defiance of this Court's orders and shall be dealt with accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
Decision 23 A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
WE CONCUR:
J~~h~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO .PERALTA
Associate Justice
{(jp~BERNABE
(On official leave)
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN ESTELA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
(On leave)
FRANClS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice
l1 tfU#tlftt/;
s EL RJMAwrums
Associate Justice
~/
\. TIJAM
:Z\ ANDRE fj9.JI
REYES, JR.
Asso~iate Justice Associ te Justice
~ ,,Z9rv ~6 ~JJ -
~~~~'Y~
~
ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
Associate Justice
CERTIFIED XEROX COPY:
\jt;A~:~~~
CLERK OF CO.'~~::; EN BANC
SUPREMt:: 0:.1,,RT