G.R.Nos.175279­80. June5,2013.*

SUSAN LIM­LUA, petitioner, vs. DANILO Y. LUA,respondent.

Civil Law; Support; As a matter of law, the amount of supportwhich those related by marriage and family relationship isgenerally obliged to give each other shall be in proportion to theresources or means of the giver and to the needs of the recipient.—Asamatterof

_______________

*FIRSTDIVISION.

238

238 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

law, the amount of support which those related bymarriage andfamilyrelationshipisgenerallyobligedtogiveeachothershallbeinproportiontotheresourcesormeansofthegiverandtotheneedsofthe recipient.Suchsupport compriseseverything indispensable forsustenance, dwelling, clothing,medical attendance, education andtransportation,inkeepingwiththefinancialcapacityofthefamily.

Same; Same; Support Pendente Lite; Upon receipt of a verifiedpetition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage or forannulment of voidable marriage, or for legal separation, and at anytime during the proceeding, the court, motu proprio or upon verifiedapplication of any of the parties, guardian or designated custodian,may temporarily grant support pendente lite prior to the renditionof judgment or final order.—Upon receipt of a verifiedpetition fordeclarationofabsolutenullityofvoidmarriageorforannulmentofvoidablemarriage,or for legal separation,andatany timeduringtheproceeding,thecourt, motu propriooruponverifiedapplicationof any of the parties, guardian or designated custodian, maytemporarily grant support pendente lite prior to the rendition ofjudgment or final order.Because of its provisionalnature, a courtdoesnotneedtodelvefullyintothemeritsofthecasebeforeitcansettleanapplicationforthisrelief.Allthatacourtistaskedtodoisdetermine the kind and amount of evidencewhichmay suffice toenableittojustlyresolvetheapplication.Itisenoughthatthefactsbe established by affidavits or other documentary evidenceappearingintherecord.

Same; Same; Same; Judicial determination of support pendentelite in cases of legal separation and petitions for declaration ofnullity or annulment of marriage are guided by the provisions ofthe Rule on Provisional Orders.—Judicialdeterminationofsupport

pendente lite in cases of legal separation and petitions fordeclarationofnullityorannulmentofmarriageareguidedby thefollowing provisions of the Rule on Provisional Orders: Sec. 2.Spousal Support.—In determining support for the spouses, thecourtmay be guided by the following rules: (a) In the absence ofadequate provisions in a written agreement between the spouses,the spousesmay be supported from the properties of the absolutecommunity or the conjugal partnership. (b) The courtmay awardsupporttoeitherspouseinsuchamountandforsuchperiodoftimeasthecourtmaydeemjustandreasonablebasedontheirstandardoflivingduringthemarriage.(c)Thecourt

239

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 239

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

maylikewiseconsiderthefollowingfactors:(1)whetherthespouseseeking support is the custodian of a child whose circumstancesmakeitappropriateforthatspousenottoseekoutsideemployment;(2) the timenecessary toacquire sufficienteducationand trainingto enable the spouse seeking support to find appropriateemployment, and that spouse’s future earning capacity; (3) thedurationofthemarriage;(4)thecomparativefinancialresourcesofthe spouses, including their comparative earning abilities in thelabormarket; (5) theneedsandobligationsofeachspouse; (6) thecontribution of each spouse to the marriage, including servicesrendered in home­making, child care, education, and careerbuildingoftheotherspouse;(7)theageandhealthofthespouses;(8) the physical and emotional conditions of the spouses; (9) theabilityofthesupportingspousetogivesupport,takingintoaccountthat spouse’s earning capacity, earned and unearned income,assets,andstandardof living;and (10)anyother factor the courtmaydeemjustandequitable.(d)TheFamilyCourtmaydirectthedeductionof theprovisionalsupport fromthesalaryof thespouse.Sec. 3.Child Support.—The common children of the spouses shallbesupported fromthepropertiesof theabsolutecommunityor theconjugal partnership. Subject to the sound discretion of the court,eitherparentorbothmaybeorderedtogiveanamountnecessaryforthesupport,maintenance,andeducationofthechild.Itshallbein proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to thenecessities of the recipient. In determining the amount ofprovisional support, the courtmay likewise consider the followingfactors:(1)thefinancialresourcesofthecustodialandnon­custodialparentandthoseofthechild;(2)thephysicalandemotionalhealthof the child and his or her special needs and aptitudes; (3) thestandard of living the child has been accustomed to; (4) the non­monetarycontributionsthattheparentswillmaketowardthecareand well­being of the child. The Family Court may direct thedeductionoftheprovisionalsupportfromthesalaryoftheparent.

Same; Same; Same; The monthly support pendente lite grantedby the trial court was intended primarily for food, householdexpenses such as salaries of drivers and house helpers, and alsopetitioner’s scoliosis therapy sessions. Hence, the value of twoexpensive cars bought by respondent for his children plus theirmaintenance cost, travel expenses of petitioner and Angelli,purchases through credit card of items other than groceries and dry

goods (clothing) should have been disallowed, as these bear norelation to the judgment

240

240 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

awarding support pendente lite.—TheCAshouldnothaveallowedall theexpenses incurredby respondent tobe creditedagainst theaccrued support pendente lite. As earlier mentioned, the monthlysupport pendente lite granted by the trial court was intendedprimarily for food, household expenses such as salaries of driversand house helpers, and also petitioner’s scoliosis therapy sessions.Hence,thevalueoftwoexpensivecarsboughtbyrespondentforhischildren plus theirmaintenance cost, travel expenses of petitionerand Angelli, purchases through credit card of items other thangroceriesanddrygoods (clothing)shouldhavebeendisallowed,asthesebearnorelationtothe judgmentawardingsupportpendentelite. While it is true that the dispositive portion of the executorydecisioninCA­G.R.SPNo.84740orderedhereinrespondenttopaythe support in arrears “less than the amount supposedly givenbypetitioner to the private respondent as her and their two (2)childrenmonthlysupport,”thedeductionsshouldbelimitedtothosebasic needs and expenses considered by the trial and appellatecourts.TheassailedrulingoftheCAallowinghugedeductionsfromthe accruedmonthly support of petitioner and her children,whilecorrect insofar as it commends the generosity of the respondent tohis children, is clearly inconsistent with the executory decision inCA­G.R. SPNo. 84740.More important, it completely ignores theunfairconsequencestopetitionerwhosesustenanceandwell­being,wasgivendueregardbythetrialandappellatecourts.

Same; Same; Same; Any amount respondent seeks to be creditedas monthly support should only cover those incurred for sustenanceand household expenses.—Onappeal,whiletheDecisioninCA­G.R.SPNo.84740reducedtheamountofmonthlysupportfixedbythetrial court, it nevertheless held that considering respondent’sfinancial resources, it is but fair and just that he give amonthlysupportforthesustenanceandbasicnecessitiesofpetitionerandhischildren.Thiswouldimplythatanyamountrespondentseekstobecredited as monthly support should only cover those incurred forsustenanceandhouseholdexpenses.

Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Contempt; Contempt ofcourt is defined as a disobedience to the court by acting inopposition to its authority, justice, and dignity.—Contemptofcourtisdefinedasadisobediencetothecourtbyactinginoppositiontoitsauthority, justice, and dignity. It signifies not only a willfuldisregardordis­

241

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 241

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

obedience of the court’s order, but such conduct which tends to

bringtheauthorityofthecourtandtheadministrationof lawintodisreputeor, insomemanner, to impedethedueadministrationofjustice.To constitute contempt, the actmust be donewillfully andforanillegitimateorimproperpurpose.Thegoodfaith,orlackofit,oftheallegedcontemnorshouldbeconsidered.

Civil Law; Support; Support Pendente Lite; The amount ofsupport may be reduced or increased proportionately according tothe reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and theresources or means of the person obliged to support.—Suffice it tostate that thematterof increaseor reductionof support shouldbesubmitted to the trial court inwhich the action for declaration fornullityofmarriagewasfiled,asthisCourtisnotatrieroffacts.Theamount of support may be reduced or increased proportionatelyaccording to the reduction or increase of the necessities of therecipient and the resources or means of the person obliged tosupport. As we held in Advincula v. Advincula, 10 SCRA 189(1964):…Judgmentforsupportdoesnotbecomefinal.Therighttosupport is of such nature that its allowance is essentiallyprovisional; for during the entire period that a needy party isentitledtosupport,hisorheralimonymaybemodifiedoraltered,inaccordance with his increased or decreased needs, and with themeans of the giver. It cannot be regarded as subject to finaldetermination.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision andresolutionoftheCourtofAppeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. Raymund Fortun Law Officeforpetitioner. P.B. Flores & Associatesforrespondent.

VILLARAMA,JR, J.:In this petition for review on certiorari underRule 45,

petitioner seeks to set aside theDecision1 dated April 20,2006

_______________

1Rollo,pp. 39­48. Penned by Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas

with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Apolinario D.

Bruselas,Jr.concurring.

242

242 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

and Resolution2 dated October 26, 2006 of the Court ofAppeals(CA)dismissingherpetitionforcontempt(CA­G.R.SP No. 01154) and granting respondent’s petition forcertiorari(CA­G.R.SPNo.01315).

Thefactualbackgroundisasfollows:OnSeptember3,2003,3 petitionerSusanLim­Lua filed

anactionforthedeclarationofnullityofhermarriagewithrespondentDaniloY.Lua,docketedasCivilCaseNo.CEB­29346 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City,Branch14.

Inherprayerforsupportpendente liteforherselfandhertwochildren,petitionersoughttheamountofP500,000.00asmonthlysupport,citingrespondent’shugeearningsfrom

salariesanddividendsinseveralcompaniesandbusinesseshereandabroad.4

After due hearing, Judge Raphael B. Yrastorza, Sr.issued an Order5 datedMarch 31, 2004 granting supportpendente lite,asfollows:

From the evidence already adduced by the parties, theamountofTwoHundredFifty(P250,000.00)ThousandPesoswouldbesufficient to takecareof theneedsof theplaintiff.This amount excludes the One hundred thirty­five(P135,000.00) Thousand Pesos for medical attendanceexpenses needed by plaintiff for the operation of both hereye[s] which is demandable upon the conduct of suchoperation. The amounts already extended to the two (2)children, being a commendable act of defendant, should becontinuedbyhimconsidering thevast financial resourcesathisdisposal.

_______________

2 Id.,atpp.50­51.PennedbyAssociateJusticePampioA.Abarintoswith

AssociateJusticesAgustinS.DizonandPriscillaBaltazar­Padillaconcurring.

3Records,p.1.

4Id.,atp.16.

5Id.,atpp.46­Bto50.

243

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 243

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

According to Art. 203 of the Family Code, support isdemandable from the time plaintiff needed the said supportbut is payable only from the date of judicial demand. Sincethe instant complaint was filed on 03 September 2003, theamount of Two Hundred Fifty (P250,000.00) Thousandshouldbepaidbydefendanttoplaintiffretroactivelytosuchdate until the hearing of the support pendente lite.P250,000.00x7 corresponding to theseven (7)months thatlapsed from September, 2003 to March 2004 wouldtantamount to a total of One Million Seven Hundred Fifty(P1,750,000.00) Thousand Pesos. Thereafter, starting themonth of April 2004, until otherwise ordered by this Court,defendant is ordered to pay a monthly support of TwoHundred Fifty Thousand (P250,000.00) Pesos payable withinthe first five (5) days of each corresponding month pursuanttothethirdparagraphofArt.203oftheFamilyCodeofthePhilippines. Themonthly support of P250,000.00 is withoutprejudice toany increaseordecrease thereof that thisCourtmay grant plaintiff as the circumstances may warrant i.e.depending on the proof submitted by the parties during theproceedingsforthemainactionforsupport.6

Respondentfiledamotionforreconsideration,7assertingthatpetitionerisnotentitledtospousalsupportconsideringthatshedoesnotmaintain forherselfaseparatedwellingfromtheirchildrenandrespondenthascontinuedtosupportthefamilyfortheirsustenanceandwell­beinginaccordancewith family’s social and financial standing. As to theP250,000.00grantedbythetrialcourtasmonthlysupport

pendente lite, as well as the P1,750,000.00 retroactivesupport,respondentfounditunconscionableandbeyondtheintendmentofthelawfornothavingconsideredtheneedsoftherespondent.

InitsMay13,2004Order,thetrialcourtstatedthattheMarch31,2004Orderhadbecomefinalandexecutorysince

_______________

6Id.,atp.49.

7Id.,atpp.55­59.

244

244 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

respondent’smotionforreconsiderationistreatedasamerescrap of paper for violation of the three­day notice periodunder Section 4, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure,asamended,andthereforedidnotinterrupttherunningoftheperiodtoappeal.Respondentwasgiventen(10) days to show cause why he should not be held incontemptofthecourt fordisregardingtheMarch31,2004ordergrantingsupportpendente lite.8

His second motion for reconsideration having beendenied,respondentfiledapetitionforcertiorariintheCA.

OnApril12,2005,theCArendereditsDecision,9findingmeritinrespondent’scontentionthatthetrialcourtgravelyabused its discretion in granting P250,000.00 monthlysupport to petitionerwithout evidence to prove his actualincome.Thesaidcourtthusdecreed:

WHEREFORE,foregoingpremisesconsidered,thispetitionis

givenduecourse.TheassailedOrdersdatedMarch31,2004,May

13, 2004, June 4, 2004 and June 18, 2004 of the Regional Trial

Court, Branch 14, Cebu City issued in Civil Case No. CEBNo.

29346entitled“SusanLimLuaversusDaniloY.Lua”arehereby

nullifiedandsetasideandinsteadanewoneisenteredordering

hereinpetitioner:

a) topayprivaterespondentamonthlysupportpendente lite

of P115,000.00 beginning the month of April 2005 and

every month thereafter within the first five (5) days

thereof;

b) topaytheprivaterespondenttheamountofP115,000.00a

monthmultiplied by thenumber ofmonths starting from

September 2003 until March 2005 less than the amount

supposedlygivenbypetitionertotheprivatere­

_______________

8 Id.,atp.71.

9 Rollo, pp. 61­69. Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo­

Dadole with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Ramon M.

Bato,Jr.concurring.

245

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 245

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

spondentasherandtheirtwo(2)childrenmonthlysupport;and

c) topaythecosts.

SOORDERED.10

NeitherofthepartiesappealedthisdecisionoftheCA.InaCompliance11datedJune28,2005,respondentattachedacopy of a check he issued in the amount of P162,651.90payabletopetitioner.Respondentexplainedthat,asdecreedintheCAdecision,hedeductedfromtheamountofsupportin arrears (September 3, 2003 toMarch 2005) ordered bytheCA—P2,185,000.00—plusP460,000.00 (April,May,JuneandJuly2005),totallingP2,645,000.00,theadvancesgivenbyhim tohis childrenandpetitioner in the sumofP2,482,348.16 (with attached photocopies ofreceipts/billings).

InherCommenttoCompliancewithMotionforIssuanceofaWritofExecution,12petitionerassertedthatnoneoftheexpensesdeductedbyrespondentmaybechargeableaspartofthemonthlysupportcontemplatedbytheCAinCA­G.R.SPNo.84740.

OnSeptember27,2005,thetrialcourtissuedanOrder13

granting petitioner’s motion for issuance of a writ ofexecution as it rejected respondent’s interpretation of theCAdecision.RespondentfiledamotionforreconsiderationandsubsequentlyalsofiledamotionforinhibitionofJudgeRaphael B. Yrastorza, Sr. On November 25, 2005, JudgeYrastorza,Sr.issuedanOrder14denyingbothmotions.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, bothmotionsareDENIED.Sinceasecondmotionforre­

_______________

10Id.,atpp.68­69.

11Id.,atpp.70­72.

12 Id.,atpp.186­189.

13Records,pp.265­266.

14Rollo,pp.193­196.

246

246 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

consideration is prohibited under the Rules, this denial hasattained finality; let, therefore,awrit of executionbe issuedinfavorofplaintiffasagainstdefendantfortheaccumulatedsupport in arrears pendente lite.

NotifybothpartiesofthisOrder.SOORDERED.15

Since respondent still failed and refused to pay thesupportinarrearspendente lite,petitionerfiledintheCAaPetitionforContemptofCourtwithDamages,docketedasCA­G.R.SPNo. 01154 (“Susan Lim Lua versus Danilo Y.Lua”).Respondent,ontheotherhand,filedCA­G.R.SPNo.01315,aPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65oftheRules

ofCourt(“Danilo Y. Lua versus Hon. Raphael B. Yrastorza,Sr., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional TrialCourt of Cebu, Branch 14, and Susan Lim Lua”).The twocaseswereconsolidated.

ByDecisiondatedApril20,2006,theCAsetasidetheassailedordersofthetrialcourt,asfollows:

WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendered:

a) DISMISSING, for lack of merit, the case of Petition for

ContemptofCourtwithDamages filedbySusanLimLua

against Danilo Y. Lua with docket no. SP. CA­GR No.

01154;

b) GRANTING Danilo Y. Lua’s Petition for Certiorari

docketed as SP. CA­GR No. 01315. Consequently, the

assailed Orders dated 27 September 2005 and 25

November 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14,

Cebu City issued in Civil Case No. CEB­29346 entitled

“Susan Lim Lua versus Danilo Y. Lua, are hereby

NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE, and instead a new one is

entered:

_______________

15Id.,atp.196.

247

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 247

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

i. ORDERING the deduction of the amount of

PhP2,482,348.16 plus 946,465.64, or a total of

PhP3,428,813.80fromthecurrenttotalsupport inarrears

ofDaniloY.Luatohiswife,SusanLimLuaandtheirtwo

(2)children;

ii. ORDERING Danilo Y. Lua to resume payment of his

monthlysupportofPhP115,000.00pesosstartingfromthe

timepaymentofthisamountwasdeferredbyhimsubject

tothedeductionsaforementioned.

iii. DIRECTING the issuance of a permanent writ of

preliminaryinjunction.

SO ORDERED.16

Theappellate court said that the trial court shouldnothave completely disregarded the expenses incurred byrespondent consistingof thepurchaseandmaintenanceofthetwocars,paymentof tuition fees, travelexpenses,andthecreditcardpurchasesinvolvinggroceries,drygoodsandbooks,whichcertainlyinuredtothebenefitnotonlyofthetwo children, but theirmother (petitioner) aswell. Itheldthat respondent’s act of deferring the monthly supportadjudgedinCA­G.R.SPNo.84740wasnotcontumaciousasit was anchored on valid and justifiable reasons.Respondent said he just wanted the issue of whether todeducthisadvancesbesettledfirstinviewofthedifferentinterpretation by the trial court of the appellate court’sdecisioninCA­G.R.SPNo.84740.Italsonotedthelackofcontribution from the petitioner in the joint obligation ofspousestosupporttheirchildren.

Petitioner filed amotion for reconsideration but it wasdeniedbytheCA.

Hence,thispetitionraisingthefollowingerrorsallegedlycommittedbytheCA:

_______________

16Id.,atp.47.

248

248 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

I.THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDINGRESPONDENTGUILTYOFINDIRECTCONTEMPT.

II.THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THEDEDUCTIONOFTHEAMOUNTOFPHP2,482,348.16PLUS946,465.64,ORATOTALOFPHP3,428,813.80FROMTHECURRENT TOTAL SUPPORT IN ARREARS OF THERESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND THEIRCHILDREN.17

The main issue is whether certain expenses alreadyincurredbytherespondentmaybedeductedfromthetotalsupport in arrears owing to petitioner and her childrenpursuanttotheDecisiondatedApril12,2005inCA­G.R.SPNo.84740.

The pertinent provision of the Family Code of thePhilippinesprovides:

Article 194. Support comprises everythingindispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medicalattendance, education and transportation, in keeping withthefinancialcapacityofthefamily.

The education of the person entitled to be supportedreferred to in the preceding paragraph shall include hisschooling or training for some profession, trade or vocation,evenbeyondtheageofmajority.Transportationshallincludeexpensesingoingtoandfromschool,ortoandfromplaceofwork.(Emphasissupplied.)

PetitionerarguesthatitwaspatentlyerroneousfortheCA to have allowed the deduction of the value of the twocars and their maintenance costs from the support inarrears, as these items are not indispensable to thesustenanceofthefamilyor

_______________

17Id.,atp.18.

249

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 249

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

inkeepingthemalive.ShepointsoutthatintheDecisioninCA­G.R.SPNo.84740,theCAalreadyconsideredthesaiditemswhichitdeemedchargeabletorespondent,whilethemonthly support pendente lite (P115,000.00) was fixed onthe basis of the documentary evidence of respondent’salleged income from various businesses and petitioner’stestimonythatsheneededP113,000.00forthemaintenanceof the household and other miscellaneous expensesexcluding theP135,000.00medicalattendanceexpensesofpetitioner.

Respondent, on the other hand, contends thatdisallowing the subject deductions would result in unjustenrichment, thusmakinghimpay for the sameobligationtwice. Since petitioner and the children resided in oneresidence, the groceries and dry goods purchased by thechildren using respondent’s credit card, totallingP594,151.58 for the period September 2003 to June 2005werenot consumedby the childrenalonebut sharedwiththeirmother.AstotheVolkswagenBeetleandBMW316irespondent bought for his daughterAngelli SuzanneLuaand Daniel Ryan Lua, respectively, these, too, are to beconsidered advances for support, in keeping with thefinancial capacity of the family. Respondent stressed thatbeing children of parents belonging to the upper­classsociety,AngelliandDanielRyanhadneverintheirentirelife commuted from one place to another, nor do they eattheir meals at “carinderias”. Hence, the cars and theirmaintenanceareindispensabletothechildren’sday­to­dayliving,thevalueofwhichwereproperlydeductedfromthearrearagesinsupportpendente liteorderedbythetrialandappellatecourts.

Asamatter of law, theamount of supportwhich thoserelated by marriage and family relationship is generallyobliged to give each other shall be in proportion to theresourcesor

250

250 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

meansofthegiverandtotheneedsoftherecipient.18Suchsupportcompriseseverythingindispensableforsustenance,dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education andtransportation,inkeepingwiththefinancialcapacityofthefamily.

Upon receipt of a verified petition for declaration ofabsolute nullity of void marriage or for annulment ofvoidablemarriage,orforlegalseparation,andatanytimeduring the proceeding, the court, motu proprio or uponverified application of any of the parties, guardian ordesignated custodian, may temporarily grant supportpendente lite prior to the rendition of judgment or finalorder.19Becauseof itsprovisionalnature,acourtdoesnotneedtodelvefullyintothemeritsofthecasebeforeitcansettleanapplicationforthisrelief.Allthatacourtistaskedtodoisdeterminethekindandamountofevidencewhichmaysufficetoenableittojustlyresolvetheapplication.Itis

enoughthat the factsbeestablishedbyaffidavitsorotherdocumentaryevidenceappearingintherecord.20

Inthiscase,theamountofmonthlysupportpendente liteforpetitionerandhertwochildrenwasdeterminedafterduehearing and submission of documentary evidence by theparties.Although theamount fixedby the trial courtwasreduced on appeal, it is clear that the monthly supportpendente lite of P115,000.00 ordered by the CA wasintendedprimarilyforthesustenanceofpetitionerandherchildren, e.g., food, clothing, salaries of drivers and househelpers,andotherhousehold

_______________

18Family Code, Art. 201; Lacson v. Lacson, 531Phil. 277, 287; 499

SCRA677,686 (2006), citingBaltazar v. Serfino,No.L­17315, July 31,

1965,14SCRA820,821.

19Sec. 1,Rule onProvisionalOrders (A.M.No. 02­11­12­SC)which

tookeffectonMarch15,2003);RevisedRulesofCourt,Rule61,Secs.1

&4.

20Mangonon v. Court of Appeals,526Phil.505,517;494SCRA1,15­

16 (2006), citingRamos v. Court of Appeals, 150­A Phil. 996, 1001; 45

SCRA604,608(1972).

251

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 251

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

expenses.Petitioner’stestimonyalsomentionedthecostofregulartherapyforherscoliosisandvitamins/medicines.

ATTY.ZOSA:

xxxx

Q Howmuchdoyouspendforyourfoodandyourtwo(2)childrenevery

month?

A Presently,Sir?

ATTY.ZOSA:

  Yes.

A For the food alone, I spend not over P40,000.00 to P50,000.00 a

monthforthefoodalone.

xxxx

ATTY.ZOSA:

Q Whatotherexpensesdoyouincurinlivinginthatplace?

A Thenormalhouseholdandthenormalexpensesforafamilytohave

adecentliving,Sir.

Q Howmuchotherexpensesdoyouincur?

WITNESS:

A Forotherexpenses,isaroundoveraP100,000.00,Sir.

Q Whydoyouincurthatmuchamount?

A For the clothing for the three (3) of us, for the vitamins and

medicines.AndalsoIamhavingaspecialtherapytostraightenmy

backbecause Iamscoliotic. I amadvisedby theDoctor tohirea

driver,butIcannotstillafforditnow.Becausemyeyesightisnot

reliablefordriving.AndIstillneedanotherhousehelptoaccompany

me whenever I go marketing because for my age, I cannot carry

anymoreheavyloads.

xxxx

ATTY.FLORES:

xxxx

252

252 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

Q On the issue of the food for you and the two (2) children, you

mentionedP40,000.00toP50,000.00?

A Yes,forthefoodalone.

Q Okay,whatotherpossibleexpensesthatyouwouldliketoincludein

thosetwo(2)items?Youmentionedofadriver,amIcorrect?

A Yes,Imightneedtwo(2)drivers,Sirformeandmychildren.

Q Okay.Howmuchwould you like possibly to pay for those two (2)

drivers?

A I think P10,000.00 a month for one (1) driver. So I need two (2)

drivers.AndIneedanotherhousehelp.

Q Youneedanotherhousehelp.Thehousehelpnowadayswouldcharge

yousomethingbetweenP3,000.00toP4,000.00.That’squite…

A Right now, my househelp is receiving P8,000.00. I need another

whichIwillgiveacompensationofP5,000.00.

xxxx

Q Otherthanthat,doyoustillhaveotherexpenses?

A Myclothing.

COURT:

Howabouttheschoolingforyourchildren?

WITNESS:

A Theschoolingisshoulderedbymyhusband,YourHonor.

COURT:

Everything?

A Yes,YourHonor.

xxxx

ATTY.FLORES:

Q Madamwitness, letustalkofthepresentneeds.xxx.Whatelse,

whatspecificneedthatyouwouldliketoaddsoIcantellmyclient,

thedefendant.

WITNESS:

253

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 253

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

A Ineed tohaveanoperationbothofmyeyes. Ialsoneedaspecial

therapyformybackbecauseIamscoliotic,three(3)timesaweek.

Q Thatisveryreasonable.[W]ouldyoucaretopleaserepeatthat?

A Therapyformyscolioticbackandthenalsofortheoperationbothof

myeyes.AndIamalsotakingsomevitaminsfromexcelthatwill

costP20,000.00amonth.

Q Okay.Let’shavepiecebypiece.HaveyouaskedtheDoctorhowmuch

woulditcostyoufortheoperationofthatscoliotic?

A YesbeforebecauseIwasalreadyduelastyear.Before,thiseyewill

costP60,000.00andtheothereyesP75,000.00.

Q So forbotheyes,youare talkingofP60,000.00plusP75,000.00 is

P135,000.00?

A Yes.

xxxx

Q Youtalkoftherapy?

A Yes.

Q Sohowmuchisthat?

A AroundP5,000.00aweek.21

As to the financial capacity of the respondent, it isbeyonddoubtthathecansolelyprovideforthesubsistence,education, transportation, health/medical needs andrecreational activities of his children, as well as those ofpetitioner who was then unemployed and a full­timehousewife. Despite this, respondent’s counsel manifestedduring the same hearing that respondent was willing togrant the amount of only P75,000.00 asmonthly supportpendente litebothforthechildrenandpetitionerasspousalsupport.Thoughthereceiptsofexpensessubmittedincourtunmistakablyshowhow

_______________

21TSN,March31,2004,pp.6­11.

254

254 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

muchrespondent lavishedonhis children, itappears thatthe matter of spousal support was a different matteraltogether. Rejecting petitioner’s prayer for P500,000.00monthly support and finding the P75,000.00 monthlysupportofferedbyrespondentasinsufficient,thetrialcourtfixed the monthly support pendente lite at P250,000.00.However, since the supposed income in millions ofrespondent was based merely on the allegations ofpetitioner in her complaint and registration documents ofvarious corporationswhich respondent insisted are ownednotbyhimbuthisparentsandsiblings,theCAreducedtheamount of support pendente lite to P115,000.00, whichrulingwasnolongerquestionedbybothparties.

Controversy between the parties resurfaced whenrespondent’s compliance with the final CA decisionindicatedthathedeductedfromthetotalamountinarrears(P2,645,000.00)thesumofP2,482,348.16,representingthevalue of the two cars for the children, their cost ofmaintenance and advances given to petitioner and hischildren. Respondent explained that the deductions weremadeconsistentwiththefallo oftheCADecisioninCA­G.R.SPNo.84740orderinghimtopaysupportpendente lite inarrears less the amount supposedly given by him topetitionerasherandtheirtwochildren’smonthlysupport.

The following is a summary of the subject deductionsunderCompliancedatedJune28,2005,dulysupportedbyreceipts:22

CarpurchasesforAngelliSuzanne ­Php1,350,000.00andDanielRyan ­613,472.86CarMaintenancefeesofAngelliSuzanne

­51,232.50

CreditcardstatementsofDanielRyan ­348,682.28

_______________

22Rollo,pp.74­185.

255

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 255

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

CarMaintenancefeesofDanielRyan ­______118,960.52TOTAL ­Php2,482,348.16

Afterthetrialcourtdisallowedtheforegoingdeductions,respondent filed a motion for reconsideration furtherasserting that the following amounts, likewise withsupporting receipts, be considered as additional advancesgiventopetitionerandthechildren:23

MedicalexpensesofSusanLim­Lua Php42,450.71DentalExpensesofDanielRyan 11,500.00TravelexpensesofSusanLim­Lua 14,611.15CreditcardpurchasesofAngelliSuzanne

408,891.08

SalonandtravelexpensesofAngelliSuzanne

87,112.70

SchoolexpensesofDanielRyanLua 260,900.00CashgiventoDanielandAngelli _______121,000.00

TOTAL ­Php946,465.64

GRANDTOTAL ­ Php 3,428,813.80

The CA, in ruling for the respondent said that all theforegoing expenses already incurred by the respondentshould, in equity, be considered advances which may beproperly deducted from the support in arrears due to thepetitioner and the two children. Said court also noted theabsenceofpetitioner’scontributiontothejointobligationofsupportfortheirchildren.

WereverseinpartthedecisionoftheCA.

_______________

23Records, pp. 278­329;CADecisiondatedApril 20, 2006,Rollo, p.

44.

256

256 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

Judicialdeterminationofsupportpendente lite incasesoflegalseparationandpetitionsfordeclarationofnullityorannulment of marriage are guided by the followingprovisionsoftheRuleonProvisionalOrders:24

Sec. 2. Spousal Support.—Indeterminingsupportforthespouses,thecourtmaybeguidedbythefollowingrules:

(a) In the absence of adequate provisions in a writtenagreement between the spouses, the spouses may besupported from the properties of the absolute community ortheconjugalpartnership.

(b) Thecourtmayawardsupporttoeitherspouseinsuchamount and for such period of time as the courtmay deemjustandreasonablebasedontheirstandardof livingduring

themarriage.(c) Thecourtmaylikewiseconsiderthefollowingfactors:

(1)whetherthespouseseekingsupport is thecustodianofachildwhosecircumstancesmakeitappropriateforthatspousenot to seek outside employment; (2) the time necessary toacquiresufficienteducationandtrainingtoenablethespouseseeking support to find appropriate employment, and thatspouse’s future earning capacity; (3) the duration of themarriage; (4) the comparative financial resources of thespouses, including their comparative earning abilities in thelabormarket;(5)theneedsandobligationsofeachspouse;(6)the contribution of each spouse to the marriage, includingservicesrenderedinhome­making,childcare,education,andcareerbuildingoftheotherspouse;(7)theageandhealthofthespouses; (8) thephysicalandemotionalconditionsof thespouses; (9) the ability of the supporting spouse to givesupport, taking into account that spouse’s earning capacity,earnedandunearnedincome,assets,andstandardofliving;and (10) any other factor the court may deem just andequitable.

_______________

24A.M.No.02­11­12­SC.

257

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 257

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

(d) The Family Court may direct the deduction of theprovisionalsupportfromthesalaryofthespouse.

Sec. 3. Child Support.—The common children of thespousesshallbesupportedfromthepropertiesoftheabsolutecommunityortheconjugalpartnership.

Subject to thesounddiscretionof thecourt,eitherparentorbothmaybeorderedtogiveanamountnecessary forthesupport,maintenance,andeducationofthechild.Itshallbeinproportiontotheresourcesormeansofthegiverandtothenecessitiesoftherecipient.

In determining the amount of provisional support, thecourt may likewise consider the following factors: (1) thefinancial resourcesof the custodialandnon­custodialparentandthoseofthechild; (2)thephysicalandemotionalhealthofthechildandhisorherspecialneedsandaptitudes;(3)thestandard of living the child has been accustomed to; (4) thenon­monetary contributions that the parents will maketowardthecareandwell­beingofthechild.

The Family Court may direct the deduction of theprovisionalsupportfromthesalaryoftheparent.

Since the amount of monthly support pendente lite asfixedbytheCAwasnotappealedbyeitherparty,thereisnocontroversyastoitssufficiencyandreasonableness.Thedispute concerns the deductions made by respondent insettlingthesupportinarrears.

Ontheissueofcreditingofmoneypaymentsorexpensesagainstaccruedsupport,we findas relevant the followingrulingsbyUScourts.

InBradford v. Futrell,25 appellant sought reviewof the

decision of the Circuit Court which found him in arrearswith his child support payments and entered a decree infavor of appelleewife.He complained that in determiningthearrearagefigure,heshouldhavebeenallowedfullcreditforall

_______________

25225Md.512;171A.2d493;1961Md.LEXIS686.

258

258 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

moneyanditemsofpersonalpropertygivenbyhimtothechildren themselves, even though he referred to them asgifts.TheCourt ofAppeals ofMaryland ruled that in thesuit todetermineamountofarrearsdue thedivorcedwifeunder decree for support of minor children, the husband(appellant) was not entitled to credit for checks which hehadclearlydesignatedasgifts,norwasheentitledtocreditforanautomobilegiventotheoldestsonoratelevisionsetgiven to the children. Thus, if the children remain in thecustodyofthemother,thefatherisnotentitledtocreditformoneypaiddirectlytothechildrenifsuchwaspaidwithoutanyrelationtothedecree.

In theabsenceof some findingof consentby themother,mostcourtsrefuse toallowahusbandtodictatehowhewillmeettherequirementsforsupportpaymentswhenthemodeofpaymentisfixedbyadecreeofcourt.Thushewillnotbecredited for payments made when he unnecessarilyinterposedhimselfasavolunteerandmadepaymentsdirecttothechildrenofhisownaccord.Wills v. Baker, 214 S. W. 2d748 (Mo. 1948); Openshaw v. Openshaw, 42 P. 2d 191 (Utah1935).Inthelattercasethecourtsaidinpart:“Thepaymentstothechildrenthemselvesdonotappeartohavebeenmadeaspaymentsuponalimony,butwererathertheresultofhisfatherly interest in thewelfare of those children.Wedonotbelieveheshouldbepermittedtochargethemtoplaintiff.Byso doing he would be determining for Mrs. Openshaw themanner inwhich she should expend her allowances. It is averyeasythingforchildrentosaytheirmotherwillnotgivethemmoney,especiallyastheymayrealizethatsuchapleaiseffective in attaining their ends. If she is not treating themrightthecourtsareopentothefatherforredress.”26

_______________

26 Id.,atp.519;id.,atpp.496­497.

259

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 259

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

In Martin, Jr. v. Martin,27 the Supreme Court ofWashingtonheldthatafather,whoisrequiredbyadivorce

decree to make child support payments directly to themother,cannotclaimcreditforpaymentsvoluntarilymadedirectly to thechildren.However, special considerationsofan equitable naturemay justify a court in crediting suchpaymentsonhisindebtednesstothemother,whensuchcanbedonewithoutinjusticetoher.

The general rule is to the effect that when a father isrequiredbyadivorcedecreetopaytothemothermoney forthesupportof theirdependent childrenand theunpaidandaccrued installments become judgments in her favor, hecannot, as a matter of law, claim credit on account ofpayments voluntarilymade directly to the children.Koon v.Koon, supra; Briggs v. Briggs, supra. However, specialconsiderations of an equitable nature may justify acourt in crediting such payments on his indebtednessto the mother, when that can be done withoutinjustice to her. Briggs v. Briggs, supra. The courts arejustifiablyreluctanttolaydownanygeneralrulesastowhensuchcreditsmaybeallowed.28(Emphasissupplied.)

Here, theCAshouldnothaveallowedall theexpensesincurredby respondent tobe creditedagainst theaccruedsupport pendente lite. As earlier mentioned, the monthlysupport pendente lite granted by the trial court wasintended primarily for food, household expenses such assalariesofdriversandhousehelpers,andalsopetitioner’sscoliosistherapysessions.Hence,thevalueoftwoexpensivecars bought by respondent for his children plus theirmaintenancecost,travelexpensesofpetitionerandAngelli,purchasesthroughcreditcardofitemsotherthangroceriesand dry goods (clothing) should have been disallowed, asthesebearnorelationto

_______________

2759Wn.2d468;368P.2d170;1962Wash.LEXIS419.

28Id.,atp.473;id.,atpp.172­173.

260

260 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

the judgment awarding support pendente lite. While it istruethatthedispositiveportionoftheexecutorydecisioninCA­G.R.SPNo.84740orderedhereinrespondenttopaythesupportinarrears“lessthantheamountsupposedlygivenbypetitionertotheprivaterespondentasherandtheirtwo(2) children monthly support,” the deductions should belimitedtothosebasicneedsandexpensesconsideredbythetrial and appellate courts. The assailed ruling of the CAallowinghugedeductionsfromtheaccruedmonthlysupportof petitioner and her children, while correct insofar as itcommendsthegenerosityoftherespondenttohischildren,is clearly inconsistent with the executory decision in CA­G.R. SPNo. 84740.More important, it completely ignorestheunfairconsequencestopetitionerwhosesustenanceandwell­being,wasgivendueregardbythetrialandappellate

courts. This is evident from the March 31, 2004 Ordergranting support pendente lite to petitioner and herchildren,whenthetrialcourtobserved:

While there is evidence to the effect that defendant isgiving some forms of financial assistance to his two (2)children via their credit cards and paying for their schoolexpenses,thesameis,however,devoidofanyformofspousalsupport to the plaintiff, for, at this point in time, while theaction for nullity of marriage is still to be heard, it isincumbentuponthedefendant,consideringthephysicalandfinancial condition of the plaintiff and the overwhelmingcapacity of defendant, to extend support unto the latter.xxx29

Onappeal,whiletheDecisioninCA­G.R.SPNo.84740reduced the amount ofmonthly support fixed by the trialcourt, it nevertheless held that considering respondent’sfinancial resources, it is but fair and just that he give amonthlysupportforthesustenanceandbasicnecessitiesofpetitioner and his children. This would imply that anyamountrespondent

_______________

29Records,p.48.

261

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 261

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

seeks tobe creditedasmonthly support shouldonly coverthoseincurredforsustenanceandhouseholdexpenses.

In the case at bar, records clearly show and in fact hasbeen admitted by petitioner that aside from paying theexpensesoftheirtwo(2)children’sschooling,hegavehistwo(2) children two (2) cars and credit cards of which theexpensesforvariousitemsnamely:clothes,groceryitemsandrepairsoftheircarswerechargeable to himwhichtotaledanamountofmorethanOneHundredThousand(P100,000.00)for each of them and considering that as testified by theprivate respondent that she needs the total amount ofP113,000.00forthemaintenanceofthehouseholdandothermiscellaneous expenses and considering further thatpetitionercanaffordtobuycarsforhistwo(2)children,andtopaytheexpensesincurredbythemwhicharechargeabletohimthroughthecreditcardsheprovidedthemintheamountofP100,000.00each, it isbut fairand just thatthemonthlysupportpendente lite forhiswife,hereinprivaterespondent,be fixed as of the present in the amount of P115,000.00which would be sufficient enough to take care of thehousehold and other needs. This monthly supportpendente lite to private respondent in the amount ofP115,000.00 excludes the amount of One HundredThirty Five (P135,000.00) Thousand Pesos for medicalattendance expenses needed by private respondent forthe operation of both her eye[s] which is demandableupon the conduct of such operation. Likewise, this monthly

supportofP115,000.00iswithoutprejudicetoanyincreaseordecrease thereof that the trial court may grant privaterespondentasthecircumstancesmaywarranti.e.dependingontheproofsubmittedbythepartiesduringtheproceedingsforthemainactionforsupport.

The amounts already extended to the two (2) children,beingacommendableactofpetitioner,shouldbe

262

262 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

continuedbyhimconsidering thevast financial resourcesathisdisposal.30(Emphasissupplied.)

Accordingly, only the following expenses of respondentmay be allowed as deductions from the accrued supportpendente liteforpetitionerandherchildren:

MedicalexpensesofSusanLim­Lua Php42,450.71DentalExpensesofDanielRyan 11,500.00CreditcardpurchasesofAngelli(GroceriesandDryGoods)

365,282.20

CreditCardpurchasesofDanielRyan _____228,869.38TOTAL Php 648,102.29

Astothecontemptcharge,wesustaintheCAinholdingthatrespondentisnotguiltyofindirectcontempt.

Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to thecourt by acting in opposition to its authority, justice, anddignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard ordisobedience of the court’s order, but such conduct whichtends to bring the authority of the court and theadministrationoflawintodisreputeor,insomemanner,toimpede the due administration of justice.31 To constitutecontempt, the act must be done willfully and for anillegitimateorimproperpurpose.32Thegoodfaith,orlackofit,oftheallegedcontemnorshouldbeconsidered.33

_______________

30Rollo,p.68.

31 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Calanza, G.R. No. 180699,

October 13, 2010, 633 SCRA 186, 192­193, citing Lu Ym v. Mahinay,

G.R.No.169476,June16,2006,491SCRA253,261­262;Lee v. Regional

Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 85, 496 Phil. 421, 433; 456 SCRA 538,

552(2005).

32 Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Distribution Management

Association of the Philippines, G.R. No. 155849, August 31, 2011, 656

SCRA331,350.

33Id.,atp.349.

263

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 263

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

Respondentadmittedlyceasedorsuspendedthegivingofmonthly support pendente lite granted by the trial court,

which is immediately executory. However, we agree withthe CA that respondent’s act was not contumaciousconsidering that he had not been remiss in actuallyproviding for the needs of his children. It is a matter ofrecordthatrespondentcontinuedshoulderingthefullcostoftheir educationandevenbeyond theirbasicnecessities inkeeping with the family’s social status. Moreover,respondent believed in good faith that the trial andappellatecourts,uponequitablegrounds,wouldallowhimto offset the substantial amounts he had spent or paiddirectlytohischildren.

Respondent complains that petitioner is very muchcapacitated to generate income on her own because shepresentlymaintainsaboutiqueattheAyalaCenterMallinCebuCityandatthesametimeengagesinthebusinessoflendingmoney.Healso claims that the twochildrenhavefinishedtheireducationandarenowemployedinthefamilybusinessearningtheirownsalaries.

Sufficeittostatethatthematterofincreaseorreductionof support shouldbe submitted to the trial court inwhichtheactionfordeclarationfornullityofmarriagewasfiled,asthisCourtisnotatrieroffacts.Theamountofsupportmay be reduced or increased proportionately according tothereductionor increaseofthenecessitiesoftherecipientand the resources or means of the person obliged tosupport.34AsweheldinAdvincula v. Advincula:35

…Judgmentforsupportdoesnotbecomefinal.Therighttosupport is of such nature that its allowance is essentiallyprovisional;forduringtheentireperiodthataneedypartyisentitled to support, his or her alimony may be modified oraltered,inaccordancewithhisin­

_______________

34Montefalcon v. Vasquez,G.R.No.165016,June17,2008,554SCRA513,

528;FAMILYCODE,Art.202.

35No.L­19065,January31,1964,10SCRA189,191.

264

264 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

creasedordecreasedneeds,andwiththemeansofthegiver.Itcannotberegardedassubjecttofinaldetermination.36

WHEREFORE, the petition isPARTLY GRANTED.TheDecisiondatedApril20,2006oftheCourtofAppealsinCA­G.R.SPNos.01154and01315isherebyMODIFIEDtoreadasfollows:

“WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendered:

a) DISMISSING, for lack of merit, the case of Petition for

ContemptofCourtwithDamages filedbySusanLimLua

against Danilo Y. Lua with docket no. SP. CA­G.R. No.

01154;

b) GRANTING IN PART Danilo Y. Lua’s Petition for

Certiorari docketed as SP. CA­G.R. No. 01315.

Consequently, the assailed Orders dated 27 September

2005 and 25November 2005 of the Regional Trial Court,

Branch14,CebuCity issued inCivilCaseNo.CEB­29346

entitled“SusanLimLuaversusDaniloY.Lua,arehereby

NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE, and instead a new one is

entered:

i. ORDERING the deduction of the amount of Php

648,102.29 from the support pendente lite in

arrearsofDaniloY.Luatohiswife,SusanLimLua

andtheirtwo(2)children;

ii. ORDERING Danilo Y. Lua to resume payment of

hismonthlysupportofPhP115,000.00pesosstarting

fromthetimepaymentofthisamountwasdeferred

byhimsubjecttothedeductionaforementioned.

_______________

36AscitedinLam v. Chua,469Phil.852,860­861;426SCRA29,34

(2004).

265

VOL.697,JUNE5,2013 265

Lim­Lua vs. Lua

iii. DIRECTING the immediate execution of this

judgment.

SOORDERED.”

Nopronouncementastocosts.SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo­De Castro,BersaminandReyes, JJ.,concur.

Petition partly granted, judgment modified.

Notes.—Aparentisobligedtosupporthischild,whetherlegitimate or illegitimate. Support consists of everythingindispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medicalattendance, educationand transportation, inkeepingwiththefinancialcapacityofthefamily.(Gotardo vs. Buling,678SCRA436[2012])

Respondents’cavalieractsofstringingtheinvestigationoutbyrepeatedlyfilingrequestsforextensionoftimetofiletheir comments and still failing to file their commentsdespitethelapseofalmosttwoyearsconstituteanappallingdisrespect of the authority of the Supreme Court and itsrulesandregulations.Thisinexcusablefailureonthepartofrespondents,byitself,amountstoanactofimpudence,asto be contumacious. (Lozada vs. Zerrudo, 695 SCRA 374[2013])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.