A.M. No. 23-04-05-SC - Concurring Opinion




A.M. No. 23-04-05-SC, July 30, 2024, ♦ Decision, Gaerlan, [J] ♦ Concurring Opinion, Leonen, [J] ♦ Dissenting Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J] ♦ Dissenting Opinion, Hernando, [J] EN BANC [ A.M. No. 23-04-05-SC, July 30, 2024 ] RE: ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN AND ACTIVITIES IN INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES – CENTRAL LUZON ALLEGEDLY PERPETRATED BY ATTY. NILO DIVINA CONCURRING OPINION LEONEN, SAJ.: Generosity has its proper time and place. The gifting of lavish holiday trips costing inordinate amounts of money, even when unsolicited, may carry with it an air of impropriety and conduct unbecoming of one's profession. In this case, the acts of "generosity" may appear, at first glance, to be harmless. However, such displays of largesse must be examined within the context for which they were given. When probed through the lens of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), these acts fall within the scope of misconduct which requires this Court to exercise its disciplinary supervision. In an Anonymous Letter, it was alleged that Atty. Nilo T. Divina (Atty. Divina) spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pesos in prohibited campaign activities related to the 2022 election of officers for the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Central Luzon Region.1 In particular, it was alleged that Atty. Divina brought the incumbent IBP officers to Balesin Island Club in the summer of 2022; gave out cash and gift checks to IBP officers in December 2022; and brought them to Bali, Indonesia in February 2023. The anonymous corn plaint also attached a letter entitled "My Story'' by Atty. Jocelyn Z. Martinez-Clemente (Atty. Martinez-Clemente), detailing a meeting she had with Atty. Divina and other lawyers in his office in Makati, where she was asked what position in the IBP she would want if Atty. Divina were to become IBP-Central Luzon Governor. After, she and the other lawyers were allegedly given gift certificates in the amount of PHP 50,000.00.2 After thorough investigation, the ponencia found that "there [was] no concrete evidence that indeed Atty. Divina has or had any intention of running for Governor of IBP-Central Luzon."3 The ponencia held that the allegations in Atty. Martinez-Clemente's letter were mere conjectures and surmises,4 and that all the allegations in the Anonymous Letter were acts committed before members of the House of Delegates—who nominate and elect the Governor for each regional IBP chapter—were elected by their local chapters.5 The investigation likewise found that the trips sponsored by Atty. Divina were only "team[ ]building activities designed to strengthen the IBP-Central Luzon office."6 The ponencia, however, found that Atty. Divina violated Canon II, Sections 1and 2 of the CPRA, concluding that while his sponsorships of trips to Balesin Island and Bali were done out of generosity, they "crossed the borders on excessive and overstepped the line of propriety."7 For this reason, Atty. Divina was found guilty of simple misconduct and fined the amount of PHP 100,000.00. The dispositive portion reads: ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds Atty. Nilo T. Divina GUILTY of Simple Misconduct in violation of Canon II Section 1 and Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and is hereby FINED PHP 100,000.00 with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. The Court's Resolution dated April 25, 2023 holding in abeyance the election of officers for the Integrated Bar of the Philippine[s] – Central Luzon is hereby lifted. Accordingly, the Integrated Bar of the Philippine[s] – Central Luzon is hereby ORDERED to proceed with the election of its Governor for the 2023-2025 term. SO ORDERED.8 (Emphasis in the original) I concur with the astute ponencia. While illegal campaigning relative to the election of officers of the IBP are grounds for the exercise of this Court's supervision over the IBP, complainants have not presented direct evidence that Atty. Divina's acts were made specifically for the purpose of having him elected as the IBP-Central Luzon Governor. Absent any concrete basis, Atty. Divina cannot be said to have violated Section 14(4)(b)9 of the Revised IBP By-Laws. I likewise concur that despite not violating the Revised IBP By-Laws, Atty. Divina's acts have still breached Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the CPRA. Acts of generosity have their time and place, and when placed in the proper context, Atty. Divina's excessive displays of gratuity, aimed specifically for the benefit of a particular group of people in positions of power, have bordered on improper and unethical behavior. While I agree with the ponencia that Atty. Divina committed simple misconduct, it is my view that the fine of PHP 100,000.00 would not be a commensurate penalty for the offense. The ponencia already recognizes the "serious nature of Atty. Divina's violation."10 The payment of a mere fine will not deter someone of Atty. Divina's affluence from committing further infractions of the same or similar nature. In my view, suspension is a more appropriate penalty for these infractions. Leniency, like generosity, has its time and place. In order to demonstrate this Court's capacity to remain impartial, even in the face of influence and wealth, we must deal with acts such as those of Atty. Divina's according to the full mandate of the CPRA. I explain further. I Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the CPRA provide: CANON II PROPRIETY A lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the profession consistent with the high standards of ethical behavior. Section 1. Proper conduct. – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Section 2. Dignified conduct. – A lawyer shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other government agencies, their officials, employees, and processes, and act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the bar. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life, to the discredit of the legal profession. According to Atty. Winston M. Ginez, President of the IBP-Zambales Chapter for the 2021-2023 term, the Balesin trip "was a legitimate IBP-Central Luzon team[ ]building activity" while the Bali trip "was a legitimate post-Christmas party celebration attended by IBP-Central Luzon officers."11 This was confirmed by Atty. Jade Paulo Tranate Molo, President of the IBP-Bataan Chapter for the term 2023-2025.12 Atty. Peter Paul S. Maglalang, the incumbent Governor of IBP-Central Luzon, adds that the Bali trip was "organized for both the IBP-Central Luzon and UST Law Alumni Association officers as its Christmas Party and farewell party for the outgoing officers of IBP-Central Luzon."13 Atty. Divina, for his part, emphasized that his generosity was "only a way of giving back to the legal community," as such displays were "unconditional and borne out of goodwill."14 He likewise explained that his generosity was not limited to Central Luzon but was also extended to other IBP chapters, and that he had been doing this "as early as 2012 through various sponsorships and donations, such as Christmas parties, golf tournaments, regional conventions, and the like."15 Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier implores the En Banc to look at Atty. Divina's generosity as pure acts of selflessness and gratuity for which he should be absolved of any wrongdoing, as it will deter him from doing further acts of gratuity.16 Justice Ricardo R. Rosario likewise points out that sponsorship of luxury trips should not be considered simple misconduct, as Atty. Divina's acts of generosity "have become routine and no longer out of the ordinary."17 It is true that lawyers should not be punished for their generosity. No one should be punished for the exercise of a higher virtue. This Court, in finding certain acts of beneficence improper, does not seek to deter genuine altruism. The practice of our profession often requires us to detach law from emotion and to uphold the rule of law with utmost impartiality. True generosity, along with compassion and empathy, is what separates those who merely seek to practice the law from those who aspire to do justice. However, the acts of generosity referred to in this case do not refer to charitable acts, donations to the less fortunate, feeding programs, or even to legal aid. The acts complained of in this case are a luxury all-expense-paid trip to Balesin Island Resort, described as a "unique, members-only, private leisure getaway,"18 and an all-expense-paid trip to popular tourist destination Bali, Indonesia. These trips were given to past, incumbent, and future officers of IBP-Central Luzon. They were not given to random members of the IBP or IBP-Central Luzon. They were given by Atty. Divina specifically to the officers named in this case, and during a critical period of the election of officers to IBP-Central Luzon. As the ponencia points out, these luxury trips have only benefited specific members of the legal community. They had no beneficial effect to the legal community as a whole.19 While it was not conclusively proven that Atty. Divina illegally campaigned in the elections for IBP-Central Luzon, the timing and intended beneficiaries of these luxury trips are highly suspect. If Atty. Divina intended to give back to his IBP Chapter, he need not give out luxury trips to its officers. Even the offer of free legal aid from the talented lawyers of his law firm would be enough. When seen within its proper context, what is being examined in this case is not Atty. Divina's generosity in general, but rather his particular endowment of gratuity to a specific group of IBP officers. II As a general rule, public officers and employees are prohibited from receiving gifts, the only exception being unsolicited gifts of nominal value. Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 671320 provides: Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. — In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: . . . . (d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. — Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office. The law defines "gift" as "a thing or a right disposed of gratuitously, or any act or liberality, in favor of another who accept it, and shall include a simulated sale or an ostensibly onerous disposition thereof."21 The definition excludes gifts that are "of nominal or insignificant value not given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor from a public official or employee."22 Receiving includes "accepting, directly or indirectly, a gift from a person other than a member of his family or relative as defined in this Act, even on the occasion of a family celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is neither nominal nor insignificant, or the gift is given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor."23 Presidential Decree No. 46 prohibits government officials and employees to receive, directly or indirectly, and for private persons to give, or offer to give, any gift, present or other valuable thing on any occasion, including Christmas, when such gift, present or other valuable thing is given by reason of [their] official position."24 The prohibition is in place regardless of whether or not the gift was given "for past favors or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future from the public official or employee concerned in the discharge of [their] official functions."25 Under the same law, it is likewise prohibited to throw "parties or entertainments in honor of the official or employee or of [their] immediate relatives."26 The rule against the receipt of gifts is even stricter for those sitting on the Bench. Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states: Section 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. Section 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office. . . . . Section 13. Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties. Section 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to their influence, direction or authority, to ask for, or accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done in connection with their duties or functions. Section 15. Subject to law and to any legal requirements of public disclosure, judges may receive a token gift, award or benefit as appropriate to the occasion on which it is made provided that such gift, award or benefit might not reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties or otherwise give rise to an appearance of partiality. An Opinion in Re: Allegations Made Under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan27 viewed such gifts as outright bribery or gross misconduct based on bribery: Bribery, like rape, is a transgression that is almost never committed in public view. It thrives and prospers in the dark, in secrecy. But this illegality is not totally unknown to the Members of this Court; we all know that bribery is happening in our midst. The media hints at it; law practitioners talk about it and do not even do so in whispers; clients accept it as a fact of litigation and readily accept their counsels' claim for extra expenses "para kay justice, para kay judge o para kay fiscal" — a grave injustice to many in the judiciary and the prosecution service who have strictly trodden the high road of morality in the public service.28 Another Opinion in the same case viewed the acceptance of gifts and favors by members of the Bench as manifestations of partiality. Refusing gifts, even if unsolicited, preserves the judiciary's independence and removes any appearance of impropriety. It was emphasized that: Judges and justices cannot accept gifts, favors, and accommodations. The only exception under existing law is that a judge or justice may only receive a gift if: 1) it is of nominal value or "a token gift, award or benefit"; 2) the gift and its value are "appropriate for the occasion on which it is made"; *and* 3) the act of giving and accepting the gift, the gift itself, or the value of such gift "might not reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties or otherwise give rise to an appearance of partiality." If any of these requirements are not present, the judge or justice commits a serious breach of both law and the canons. Since it is a violation of law and it affects the public's perception of the fundamental values of integrity and independence of the judiciary, it amounts to a grave misconduct punishable by dismissal from the service.29 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted) The situation in this present case is slightly different as it does not involve the giving of gifts to public officers such as judges and justices. The CPRA does not contain a specific prohibition against the receipt of gifts. Tabuzo v. Gomos,30 however, defines the IBP as "a sui generis public institution deliberately organized, by both the legislative and judicial branches of government and recognized by the present and past Constitutions, for the advancement of the legal profession."31 While its By-Laws32 only allow those in private practice to occupy the position of officers within its organization, its officers are "private practitioners performing public functions delegated to them by this Court."33 Here, the recipients of Atty. Divina's gratuity were private practitioners who perform public functions as officers of the IBP. There was, thus, a higher standard of propriety expected from them than from that of other private practitioners. More so in this instance, when the luxury trips coincided with the conduct of IBP elections. It was proper for this Court to look into Atty. Divina's acts within this period, since it is not the first time that this Court encountered allegations of electioneering in the IBP elections. In Re: Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,34 this Court noted the blatant electioneering conducted by candidates to the position of national officers and regional officers, remarking: The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty to "promote respect for law and legal processes" and to abstain from "activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system" (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility). Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who are supposed to be millions of the law engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for their observance. The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency of the association detracted from the dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote one way or another, certainly did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the public's esteem.35 In Re: Brewing Controversies in the Elections in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,36 a Concurring Opinion noted the "the crises of leadership of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines at various periods in its history" which "may have alienated many ordinary practitioners from either taking full advantage of the benefits of an integrated bar or wanting to participate in the democratic processes for choosing its leaders."37 While not strictly public officers, IBP officers still exercise public functions. Allegations of impropriety, such as the receipt of gifts or favors, should be properly investigated and proven. This Court should not tolerate instances that would appear to cast doubt on the professionalism and moral character of the members of the IBP. Gifts such as luxury trips may seem harmless, especially when the giver insists that these were "were unconditional and borne out of goodwill."38 However, for these to be considered as truly unconditional is to disregard the common Filipino trail of utang na loob. In Query of Executive Judge Estrada,39 a judge asked whether or not he should inhibit from a case where one of the counsels before him was the one who recommended him to the Bench. This Court explained this uniquely Filipino trait, of which even members of the Bench may not be immune to: [M]en of the Bench are not without imperfections. A judge too, experience the "tug and pull of purely personal preferences and prejudices which he shares with the rest of his fellow mortals." The second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court "made clear to the occupants of the Bench that outside of pecuniary interest, relationship or previous participation in the matter that calls for adjudication, there may be other causes that could conceivably erode the trait of objectivity, thus calling for inhibition. That is to betray a sense of realism, for the factors that lead to preferences or predilections are many and varied." Among these may be the Filipino "utang na loob." Judge Masadao expounds on the matter thus: "For Filipinos, in particular, a sense of gratitude is one trait which invariably reigns supreme over any and all considerations in matters upon which such tender sentiment may somehow inexorably impinge. Generally, whoever owes a debt of favor endeavors to repay the same in any discernible fashion as soon as the opportunity therefore emerges." Judge Masadao is not necessarily stretching the Filipino "utang na loob" – gratitude which renders a man beholden to another, a sense of obligation which is valued as highly as pride and honor – beyond its proper limits. The best way to show one's "utang na loob" to whoever recommended him is to do honor to the position, not only in rendering just, correct, and impartial decisions but doing so in a manner free from any suspicion as to their fairness and impartiality and as to the integrity of the judge.40 (Citations omitted) "Utang na loob is created through an unsolicited presentation of goods and services. . . . The gift activates a unilateral relationship of indebtedness reversable only by means of a properly offered return gift."41 It is a debt of gratitude, unilaterally given and unsolicited, made for the sole purpose of requiring reciprocity from the receiver at some point in time. It is never requested; it is always offered. The debts appear to be unconditional, but the conditions are always attached with unseen strings: Utang na loob is built on a set of firm explicit social expectations. Failure to meet any of these leads to social stress or cleavage of varying degree. No matter how inadvertent, failure on the part of the person of whom particular behavior is expected can generate ill will, humiliation, shame, and, most importantly, desire for retaliation on the part of the one expecting. Further, it can have effects of wider implication. Breakdown at any point threatens more than the immediate relationship between two individuals; it threatens the functioning of a whole network of relationships.42 Future repayment may not always be the same as what was bestowed. Recipients may repay this gratitude through something as simple as goodwill. For example, if the giver commits a graver impropriety or a more serious infraction in the future, the recipient could come to their defense and insist that the giver is a good person who would not do those things. Atty. Divina can assert that his gratuitousness comes with no strings and is freely given. However, our culture is not one to merely accept unilateral and unsolicited gifts without any thought of repayment. Whether Atty. Divina intended for these gifts to be unconditional is irrelevant. What is clear is that Atty. Divina created a sense of gratitude within the beneficiaries of these luxury trips, which may influence their future dealings with him. In future disciplinary cases against him, for example, these beneficiaries of his magnanimity would be ready to come to his defense despite clearer and more direct evidence of his infractions. It is this behavior that is being disciplined by this Court in this case. This Court is not punishing Atty. Divina's generosity. It is reminding him of his sense of propriety in dealing with his colleagues in the legal community. Excessive and luxurious gifts to lawyers that are or will be in positions of power within the IBP during the election of officers carries an air of suspicion. Even when repayment is not expected, the sense of gratitude remains. It is an invisible string that can always be pulled during a critical time. There was no direct evidence that Atty. Divina used these gifts to influence the current IBP elections. However, it cannot be denied that the recipients of these gifts now feel a sense of gratitude to him. If they do not, their peers could see them as ungrateful to their erstwhile patron. Such a situation would not arise had Atty. Divina maintained a sense of propriety in his personal dealings within the legal community. Canon II of the CPRA mandates: A lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the profession consistent with the high standards of ethical behavior. . . . . A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life, to the discredit of the legal profession. Atty. Divina's gifts, while generous, were nonetheless improper. It was properly characterized by the ponencia as misconduct that adversely reflected on one's fitness to practice law. III Canon VI, Section 34 of the CPRA defines simple misconduct as "such misconduct without the manifest elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules," which is a less serious offense. Canon VI, Section 37 (b) sanctions less serious offenses with the following penalties: (b) If the respondent is found guilty of a less serious offense, any of the following sanctions, or a combination thereof, shall be imposed: (1) Suspension from the practice of law for a period within the range of one (1) month to six (6) months, or revocation of notarial commission and disqualification as notary public for less than two (2) years; (2) A fine within the range of [PHP] 35,000.00 to [PHP] 100,000.00. The ponencia recommends a penalty of a fine of PHP 100,000.00. In my view, a fine is not the proper penalty in this case. The CPRA mandates either suspension, revocation of notarial commission, a fine, or a combination of any of these penalties. Atty. Divina is being sanctioned precisely because he used his wealth to commit improprieties. The gravity of the offense would not be felt by Atty. Divina if this Court allows him the simple expediency paying a fine. For Atty. Divina—or any other lawyer—to be deterred from committing the same or similar acts in the future, the proper penalty should be suspension from the practice of law. ACCORDINGLY, I vote to find Atty. Nilo T. Divina GUILTY of simple misconduct in violation of Canon II, Section 1 and Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, and to impose a penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for six months, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Footnotes 1 Ponencia, p. 4. 2 Id. 3 Id. at 18. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. at 19. 7 Id. at 23. 8 Id. at 24–25. 9 Section 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections. — The following acts and practices relative to the elections of officers are prohibited, whether committed by a candidate for any elective office in the Integrated Bar or by any other member, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner, by themselves or through another person: . . . . (4) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withhold his or her vote, or to vote for or against a candidate: (a) payment of the dues to the Integrated Bar or other indebtedness of any member to any third party; (b) giving of food, drink, entertainment, transportation, or any article of value, or similar consideration to any person, or (c) making a promise or causing an expenditure to be made, offered, or promised to any person. 10 Ponencia, p. 23. 11 Id. at 9. 12 Id. 13 Id. at 7. 14 Id. at 10. 15 Id. 16 J. Lazaro-Javier, Reflections, p. 6. 17 J. Rosario, Reflections, p. 2. 18 Alphaland Corporation, Balesin Island Club, A Private Island Paradise for Members, available at https://alphaland.com.ph/balesin-island-club/ (last accessed March 12, 2024). 19 Ponencia, p. 23. 20 Republic Act No. 6713 (1989), Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. 21 Republic Act No. 6713 (1989), sec. 3(c). 22 Republic Act No. 6713 (1989), sec. 3(c). 23 Republic Act No. 6713 (1989), sec. 3(d). 24 Presidential Decree No. 46 (1972). 25 Presidential Decree No. 46 (1972). 26 Presidential Decree No. 46 (1972). 27 743 Phil. 622 (2014) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 28 J. Brion, Separate Concurring Opinion in Re: Allegations Made Under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan, 743 Phil. 622, 683 (2014) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 29 J. Leonen, Separate Concurring Opinion in Re: Allegations Made Under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan, 743 Phil. 622, 732 (2014) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 30 836 Phil. 297 (2018) [Per J. Gesmundo, Third Division]. 31 Tabuzo v. Gomos, 836 Phil. 297, 298 (2018) [Per J. Gesmundo, Third Division]. 32 Section 4. Non-political bar. — The Integrated Bar is strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof. 33 Tabuzo v. Gomos, 836 Phil. 297, 313 (2018) [Per J. Gesmundo, Third Division]. 34 258-A Phil. 171 (1989) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 35 Id. at 196. 36 709 Phil. 7 (2013) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc]. 37 J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in Re: Brewing Controversies in the Elections in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 709 Phil. 7, 105 (2013) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc]. 38 Ponencia, p. 10. 39 239 Phil. 1 (1987) [Per J. Gutierrez, En Banc]. 40 Id. at 6–7. 41 Charles Kaut, Utang Na Loob: A System of Contractual Obligation among Tagalogs, 17 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY 3, 258 (1961). 42 Id. at 269. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation