lucman v. malawi

11/20/2015 G.R.No.159794

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_159794_2006.html 1/8

TodayisFriday,November20,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.159794December19,2006

MACLARINGM.LUCMAN,inhiscapacityastheManageroftheLANDBANKOFTHEPHILIPPINES,MarawiCity,petitioner,vs.ALIMATARMALAWI,ABDULKHAYERPANGCOGA,SALIMATARSARIP,LOMALACADAR,ALIRIBAS.MACARAMBONandABDULUSMAN,respondents.

DECISION

TINGA,J.:

Thisisapetitionforreviewchallengingthedecisionofthetrialcourt,affirmedbytheCourtofAppeals,grantingthe petition formandamus filed by herein respondents, Barangay Chairmen (or Punong Barangay) of severalbarangaysintheprovinceofLanaodelSur.

The petition for mandamus filed by respondents before the trial court is rooted in their claim that they weredeprived of their Internal RevenueAllotment (IRA) for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 1997. Respondents furtherallegedthatthesesamefundswerereleasedbypetitionerasManagerofLandBankofthePhilippines(LBP),thedepositarybank,tothirdpersons.

There were originally six (6) petitioners when the Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for Writ of PreliminaryMandatory Injunction was filed by now respondents before the court of origin. They were Alimatar Malawi,AbdulkhayrPangcoga,SalimatarSarip,LomalaCadar,AliribaS.MacarambonandAbdulUsmanwhowere theincumbentbarangaychairmenofBubongNgingir(Kabasaran),Ilian,Linindingan,MapantaoIngod,PaigoayandRangiran,respectively,all fromtheMunicipalityofPagayawan,LanaodelSur.1Allof themwere the incumbentbarangaychairmenoftheirrespectivebarangayspriortothe12May1997barangayelections.Theelectionson12May1997intheaforesaidbarangaysresultedinafailureofelections.Thereafter,thespecialelectionsheldinthesebarangays likewise resulted ina failureof elections.2Consequently, respondents remained in office in aholdovercapacitypursuanttotheprovisionsofSec.1of

R.A.No.66793andComelecResolutionNo.2888datedFebruary5,1997.4

Beginningwiththesecondquarterof1997,LBPwasselectedasthegovernmentdepositorybankfortheIRAsofthe abovementioned barangays.5 Being a new government depositary bank for the IRA funds, the authorizedpublicofficialshad toopennewaccounts inbehalf of their governmentunitswith theproperLBPbranch fromwhichtheycouldwithdrawtheIRAs.6

After the failed 12May 1997 elections, respondents attempted to open their respective barangays' IRA bankaccounts but were refused by petitioner because respondents needed to show their individual certificationsshowing their right to continue servingasBarangayChairmenand the requisiteMunicipalAccountant'sAdvicegiving respondents the authority to withdraw IRA deposits.7 The requirement for the Accountant's AdvicestemmedfromCommissiononAuditCircularNo.94004.8

RespondentswereeventuallyallowedtoopenaccountsfortheirbarangaysexceptforLomalaCadarandAbdulUsman of barangaysMapantaoIngud and Rangiran, respectively, because the accounts for these barangayswerepreviouslyopenedbytwopersonswhopresentedthemselvesasthedulyproclaimedBarangayChairmenforthesesamebarangays.9

11/20/2015 G.R.No.159794


Inanyevent,allrespondentswerenotallowedtowithdrawtheIRAfundsfromtheopenedaccounts,owingtotheabsenceoftherequisiteAccountant'sAdvice.10

Thenon4August1997,five(5)otherpersonspresentedthemselvesbeforepetitionerasthenewlyproclaimedPunongBarangaysofthefivebarangaysconcerned,11eachofthempresentingacertificationofhiselectionasPunongBarangay issued by the provincial director of theDILGARMMand anotherCertification issued by theLocal Government Operations Officer attesting, among others, to the revocation of the certification previouslyissuedtorespondents.12Withoutverifyingtheauthenticityofthecertificationspresentedbythesethirdpersons,petitionerproceededtoreleasetheIRAfundsforthe2ndand3rdquartersof1997tothem.13

Respondents thus filedon11August1997a special civil action forMandamuswithApplication forPreliminaryMandatoryInjunctiondocketedasCivilCaseNo.11106,tocompelpetitionertoallowthemtoopenandmaintaindeposit accounts covering the IRAsof their respective barangays and towithdraw therefrom.14 The casewasraffledtotheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofLanaodelSur,Branch11.15

AtthetrialrespondentsSarip,Cadar,PangcogaandUsmantestifiedthattheyweredulyelectedchairpersonsoftheirrespectivebarangaysandcontinuedassuchinaholdovercapacityuntiltheirreelectionon30August1997.They testified further that despite presenting the corresponding documents, petitioner refused to allow thewithdrawalofthefunds.16

RespondentMacarambon testified thathewas the incumbentchairpersonofBarangayPaigoayprior to the12May 1997 elections and that due to the failure of elections, he continued to occupy his position in a holdovercapacityuntilhewassucceededbyhiswifeuponthelatter'selectiontothesamepost.Hetestifiedonpetitioner'srefusaltoreleasethemoneytohimdespitehissubmissionoftheAccountant'sAdvice.17

Forfailuretoappearatthescheduledhearingon20April1999,petitionerwasheldasindefaultandrespondentswereallowedtopresentevidenceexparte.Petitioner'sMotionforReconsiderationoftheOrderdeclaringhimasindefaultwasgranted.18

After failingagain toappearon thegiven time forhim toadduceevidence,anotherOrderwas issuedwhereinpetitionerwasdeemedtohavewaivedhisrighttopresentevidence.TheOrderwasliftedonpetitioner'sMotionforReconsideration.Insteadofpresentingevidence,petitionerfiledon10November1999aMotiontoDispenseorWaivePresentationofEvidencewhereinhe represented that theprayers in thecomplainthadalreadybeencompliedwith.19TheRTCgrantedpetitioner'smotionthroughanOrderdated24September1999.20

Thereafter, theRTC renderedaDecision21dated8October 1999 commandingpetitioner to pay respondents,exceptrespondentAlimatarMalawiwhofailedtotestify,theIRAsoftheirrespectivebarangays"evenwithouttheAccountant'sAdvice."22ThedispositiveportionoftheDecisionreads,towit:

WHEREFORE,premisesallconsidered, the instantpetition isherebygranted.Accordingly,Mr.MaclaringM.Lucman,ManageroftheLandBankofthePhilippines,MarawiCitybranch,isherebyorderedtopaythefollowing:23

1.AliribaMacarambon,the2ndQuarterIRAofPaigoay,PagayawaninthesumofP48,200.00

2.SalimatarSaripofLinindinganthe

2ndQuarterIRAP54,220.00

3rdQuarterIRAP54,220.00

3.LomalaS.CadarofMapantaothe



4.AbdulkhayPangcogaofIlianthe



5.AbdulUsmanofRangiranthe

11/20/2015 G.R.No.159794




evenwithouttheAccountant'sAdviceandthesubsequentIRAsuntiltheirtermofofficeshallhaveexpired.

SOORDERED.24

TheRTCgaveno credence to petitioner's assertion of payment to the rightful barangayofficers, there havingbeen no testimonial or documentary evidence proferred in substantiation thereof.25 It considered petitioner'srefusal to present evidence as a "silence" that equates to an admission of respondents' allegations.26Furthermore, theRTC reliedon the testimoniesandcertificationsadducedby respondents inholding that theywereoccupying theirpositions inaholdovercapacity27and thatbyvirtue thereof, theyhad "theperfect right tocontinueperformingthedutiesandfunctionsoftheirpositionsincludingthewithdrawaloffundsoftheirrespectivebarangays."28

TheCourtofAppeals29affirmedtheRTC'sDecisionintoto.Hence,thispetition.

Petitioner argues that respondents have no cause of action against him since they failed to present validcertifications showing their respective right to continue serving as Punong Barangay as well as the requisiteMunicipal Accountant's Advice. Petitioner also asserts that the LBP Marawi Branch had already released thecontested IRAs to the Barangay Treasurers who were acting in conjunction with the duly recognized PunongBarangays,therebymakingthepetitionformandamusmootandacademic.30Thesearefactual issuesthataregenerallybeyondthereviewofthisCourt.

Petitioner adds that respondents have no legal personality to institute the petition formandamus in their ownnames since the IRAs rightfully belong to the respective barangays and not to them and that their respectivebarangaysalreadyreceivedtheclaimedIRAsinthisinstantcase.31

Fortheproperadjudicationofthepresentpetition,tworelatedcoreissueshavetoberesolved.First,whatisthecauseof actionalleged in the initiatorypleading filedby respondentsbefore the trial court?Second,are thereindispensablepartieswhichwerenotimpleaded?

AlthoughthepleadingfiledbeforethelowercourtwasdenominatedasaPetitionforMandamusWithPrayerForWrit of Preliminary Injunction, the allegations thereof indicate that it is an action for specific performance,particularly to compel petitioner to allow withdrawal of funds from the accounts of the barangays headed byrespondentswiththeLBP,MarawiBranch.Thus,thePetitionalleged:

"12. Despite the opening of deposit accounts for the barangaysmentioned in the preceding paragraph,respondent,withoutany validor lawful cause, failedand refused,andstill fails and refuses, toallow thewithdrawal of the funds or IRA of the said barangays as evidenced by the WITHDRAWAL CHECKS(attachedasAnnexes"D"to"D3"hereof)ofsaidbarangayswhichwererefusedpaymentwhenpresentedtotheLandBankonAugust4,1997."32

Fromtherecordsofthecase,itappearsthatthesharesofthebarangaysintheIRAhadalreadybeenremittedby theDepartmentofBudgetandManagement (DBM) to theLBPMarawiBranchwhere theywerekept in theaccountsopenedinthenamesofthebarangays.

By virtue of the deposits, there exists between the barangays as depositors and LBP a creditordebtorrelationship.Fixed,savings,andcurrentdepositsofmoneyinbanksandsimilarinstitutionsaregovernedbytheprovisions concerning simple loan.33 In other words, the barangays are the lenders while the bank is theborrower.

ThisCourtelucidatedonthematterinGuingona,Jr.,etal.v.TheCityFiscalofManila,etal.,34citingSerranov.CentralBankofthePhilippines,35thus:

Bankdepositsareinthenatureofirregulardeposits.Theyarereallyloansbecausetheyearninterest.Allkindsofbankdeposits,whetherfixed,savings,orcurrentaretobetreatedasloansandaretobecoveredbythelawonloans(Art.1980,CivilCodeGullasv.Phil.NationalBank,62Phil.519).Currentandsavingsdepositsareloanstoabankbecauseitcanusethesame.Thepetitionerhereinmakingtimedeposits that earn interest with respondent Overseas Bank of Manila was in reality a creditor of therespondentBankandnotadepositor.TherespondentBankwasinturnadebtorofpetitioner.FailureoftherespondentBanktohonorthetimedepositisfailuretopayitsobligationasadebtorandnotabreach of trust arising from a depository's failure to return the subjectmatter of the deposit. (Emphasissupplied.)36

11/20/2015 G.R.No.159794


The relationshipbeingcontractual innature,mandamus is thereforenotanavailable remedysincemandamusdoesnotlietoenforcetheperformanceofcontractualobligations.37

Thisbringsustothesecondcoreissue.

TheIRAfundsforwhichthebankaccountswerecreatedbelongtothebarangaysheadedbyrespondents.Thebarangaysare theonly lawful recipientsof these funds.Consequently,any transactionorclaim involving thesefundscanbedoneonlythroughtheproperauthorizationfromthebarangaysasjuridicalentities.

Thedetermination,therefore,ofwhetherornottheIRAfundswereunlawfullywithheldorimproperlyreleasedtothird persons can only be determined if the barangays participated as parties to this action. These questionscannotbe resolvedwith finalitywithout the involvementof thebarangays.Afterall, thesecontroversies involvefundsrightfullybelongingtothebarangays.Hence,thebarangaysareindispensablepartiesinthiscase.

An indispensableparty isdefinedaspartiesininterestwithoutwhom therecanbeno finaldeterminationofanaction.38Thenatureofan indispensablepartywas thoroughlydiscussed inArcelonav.CourtofAppeals,39 toquote:

Anindispensablepartyisapartywhohassuchaninterestinthecontroversyorsubjectmatterthatafinaladjudicationcannotbemade,inhisabsence,withoutinjuringoraffectingthatinterest,apartywhohasnotonlyaninterestinthesubjectmatterofthecontroversy,butalsohasaninterestofsuchnaturethatafinaldecreecannotbemadewithoutaffectinghisinterestorleavingthecontroversyinsuchaconditionthatitsfinal determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It has also beenconsidered that an indispensable party is a person in whose absence there cannot be a determinationbetween the parties already before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Further, anindispensablepartyisonewhomustbeincludedinanactionbeforeitmayproperlygoforward.

A person is not an indispensable party, however, if his interest in the controversy or subject matter isseparable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriouslyaffectedbyadecreewhichdoescomplete justicebetween them.Also,aperson isnotan indispensableparty if his presencewouldmerely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to theaction,or ifhehasnointerest inthesubjectmatteroftheaction.It isnotasufficientreasontodeclareapersontobeanindispensablepartythathispresencewillavoidmultiplelitigation.40

InArcelona, the Court also dwelt on the consequences of failure to include indispensable parties in a case,categoricallystatingthatthepresenceofindispensablepartiesisaconditionfortheexerciseofjuridicalpower41andwhenan indispensableparty isnotbefore thecourt, theactionshouldbedismissed.42Theabsenceofanindispensablepartyrendersallsubsequentactionsofthecourtnullandvoidforwantofauthoritytoact,notonlyastotheabsentpartiesbutevenastothosepresent.43

Thejoinderof indispensablepartiesismandatory.Withoutthepresenceof indispensablepartiestothesuit,thejudgmentofthecourtcannotattainrealfinality.Strangerstoacasearenotboundbythejudgmentrenderedbythecourt.44

Clearly,thiscasewasnotinitiatedbythebarangaysthemselves.Neitherdidthebarangaychairmenfilethesuitinrepresentationoftheirrespectivebarangays.Nothingfromtherecordsshowsotherwise.Onthisscorealone,thecaseinthelowercourtshouldhavebeendismissed.

Even if thebarangays themselveshad filed the case, still itwouldnot prosper.The case involvesgovernmentfunds and as such, any release therefrom can only be done in accordance with the prevailing rules andprocedures.

TheGovernmentAccountingandAuditingManual (GAAM)provides that the local treasurersshallmaintain thedepositary accounts in the name of their respective local government units with banks.45 Under the LocalGovernmentCode,thetreasurerisgiventhepower,amongothers,to:(1)keepcustodyofbarangayfundsandpropertiesand(2)disbursefundsinaccordancewiththefinancialproceduresprovidedbytheLocalGovernmentCode.46Thesamemanualdefinesdisbursementsasconstitutingallcashpaidoutduringagivenperiodeitherincurrencyorbycheck.47

Sec. 344 of the Local Government Code further provides for the following requirements in cases ofdisbursements,towit:

Sec. 344. No money shall be disbursed unless the local budget officer certifies to the existence ofappropriation that has been legally made for the purpose, the local accountant has obligated saidappropriation, and the local treasurer certifies to the availability of funds for the purpose. Vouchers and

11/20/2015 G.R.No.159794


payrollsshallbecertifiedtoandapprovedbytheheadofthedepartmentorofficewhohasadministrativecontrolofthefundconcerned,astothevalidity,propriety,andlegalityoftheclaiminvolved.Exceptincasesof disbursements involving regularly recurring administrative expenses xxx approval of the disbursementvoucherbythelocalchiefexecutivehimselfshallberequiredwheneverlocalfundsaredisbursed.

Thus,asasafeguardagainstunwarranteddisbursements,certificationsare required from: (a) the localbudgetofficer as to the existence and validity of the appropriation (b) the local accountant as to the legal obligationincurredbytheappropriation(c) the local treasurerastotheavailabilityof fundsand(d) the localdepartmentheadastothevalidity,proprietyandlegalityoftheclaimagainsttheappropriation.48

Further, theGAAMprovides for thebasic requirementsapplicable toall classesofdisbursements thatshallbecompliedwith,towit:

a) Certificate of Availability of Fund.Existence of lawful appropriation, the unexpended balance ofwhich, free from other obligations, is sufficient to cover the expenditure, certified as available by anaccountingofficeroranyotherofficialrequiredtoaccomplishthecertificate.

Useofmoneysappropriatedsolelyforthespecificpurposeforwhichappropriated,andfornoother,exceptwhenauthorizedbylaworbyacorrespondingappropriatingbody.

b)Approvalofclaimorexpenditurebyheadofofficeorhisdulyauthorizedrepresentative.

c) Documents to establish validity of claim. Submission of documents and other evidences toestablishthevalidityandcorrectnessoftheclaimforpayment.

d)Conformityoftheexpendituretoexistinglawsandregulations.

e)Properaccountingtreatment.49

This prescribed legal framework governing the release and disbursement of IRA funds to the respectivebarangays disabuses from the notion that a barangay chairman, relying solely on his authority as a localexecutive,hastherighttodemandphysicalpossessionoftheIRAfundsallocatedbythenationalgovernmenttothebarangay.TherighttodemandforthefundsbelongstothelocalgovernmentitselfthroughtheauthorizationoftheirSanggunian.50

One final note. There is no conclusive proof from the records showing that the IRA funds for the 2nd and 3rdquartersofthebarangaysconcernedremittedbytheDBMhadalreadybeen

withdrawnfromtheLBPMarawiBranch.ConsideringtheimplicationsofthisactionofpossiblydeprivingseverallocalgovernmentunitsoftheirIRAs,theCourttooktheinitiativetorequesttheCOMELECtoissuecertificationsonwhowerethedulyelectedchairmenofthebarangaysconcerned.TheCOMELECissuedtothisCourtalistofthe elected barangay chairmenwhich confirmed the reelection of respondents as barangay chairmen of theirrespective barangays.51 If withdrawals were indeed made, whether by the respondents or by impostors, thematter deserves to be investigated since public funds are involved. Accordingly, we refer the matter to theDepartmentofInteriorandLocalGovernment(DILG)forinvestigationandappropriateaction.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered, thepetition isGRANTED.TheassailedDecisionsof theCourt ofAppealsand the Regional Trial Court are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition for Mandamus filed before theRegionalTrialCourtisorderedDISMISSED.

TheallegedwithdrawalsofdepositsrepresentingtheInternalRevenueAllotmentsforthe2ndand3rdQuartersof1997ofthebarangaysconcernedfromtheLandBankofthePhilippines,MarawiBranch,arereferredtotheDILGforinvestigationandappropriateaction.TheDILGisherebyDIRECTEDtoINFORMtheCourtoftheresultofitsinvestigationwithinthirty(30)daysfromthecompletionthereof.

Nopronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.

Quisumbing,J.,Chairperson,Carpio,CarpioMorales,andVelasco,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1RTCDecision,rollo,pp.126130.

11/20/2015 G.R.No.159794


2CADecision,id.at24.

3Id.at126.

Section1.TheelectionsofbarangayofficialssetonthesecondMondayofNovember1998byRepublicAct6653areherebypostponedandresettoMarch28,1989.TheyshallserveatermwhichshallbeginonthefirstdayofMay1989andendingonthethirtyfirstdayofMay1994.

ThereshallbeheldaregularelectionofbarangayofficialonthesecondMondayofMay1994andonthesamedayeveryfive(5)yearsthereafter.Theirtermshallbeforfive(5)yearswhichshallbeginonthefirstdayofJunefollowingtheelectionanduntiltheirsuccessorsshallhavebeenelectedandqualified:Provided,Thatnobarangayofficialshallserveformorethanthree(3)successiveterms.

xxxx

4Id.

Sec.42.CandidatesHoldingElectiveorAppointiveOffice.xxxx

Incumbentelectivebarangayofficialsrunningforthesameofficeshallnotbeconsideredresigneduponthefilingoftheircertificateofcandidacy.Theyshallcontinuetoholdofficeuntiltheirsuccessorsshallhavebeenelectedandqualified.

5Id.at108.

6Id.

7Id.at63.

8COACircularNo.94004states:

IthascometotheattentionoftheCommissionthatnotallbarangaycheckspaidbybarangaydepositorybanksarecoveredbydulyapproveddisbursementvouchers/payrolls.Saidpracticehasresultedinthedoubtfulvalidityandthenonrecordingoftransactionsinthebarangaybooksofaccounts.

Topreventsuchoccurrenceandtoensurethatchecksencashedbybarangaydepositorybanksareforlegitimatebarangayexpenditures,theuseofAccountant'sAdviceofBarangayCheckDisbursementsisherebyprescribed.xxxxBarangayDepositorybanksareenjoinedtopaychecksissuedbybarangaysonlyifaccompaniedbytheAdvice.xxxx.CArollo,p.69.

9Rollop.25.

10Id.at29.

11Thepersonswhorepresentedthemselvesasthebarangaychairmenofthefivebarangaysconcernedarethefollowing:AlimamaManalaoforBarangayNgingirBubongPitiIlanAdiongforBarangayIlianSolaimanManalaoforBarangayLinindinganAbayaragaMaruhomforBarangayMapantaoandSittieSandabforBarangayRangiran.Id.at26.

12Id.at26and29.

13Id.at2930.

14RTCRecords,pp.713.

15PresidedbyJudgeMoslemenT.Macarambon,whohasnorelationshipwithrespondentAliribaS.Macarambon.SeeTSN,20April1999,p.3.

16Rollo,pp.3032.

17Id.at31.

18Id.at127.

11/20/2015 G.R.No.159794


19Id.SeealsoRTCRecords,pp.237238.

20Rollo,p.127.

21Supranote1.

22Id.at130.

23Thetrialcourtconcentratedonthefiverespondents,andexcludedtheevidencepresentedbyAlimatarMalawibecausethetruenameofthispartyisAlinaderMalawi.ThecourtadvisedthecounseltoamendthepetitionwithrespecttoAlinaderMalawi.RecordsdonotshowanyactionofamendmentbycounselofAlinaderMalawi.SeeTSN,20April1999,p.59.

24Rollo,p.130.

25Id.at123.

26Id.

27Id.at24.

28Id.

29InadecisionpennedbyAssociateJusticeBienvenidoL.ReyesandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesRobertoA.BarriosandEdgardoF.SundiamoftheSeventeenthDivision.

30Rollo,pp.6263.

31Id.at67.

32RTCRecords,p.10.

33CivilCode,Art.1980.

34213Phil.516,523524(1984).

35No.L30511,14February1980,96SCRA96.

36Emphasissupplied.

37Manalov.PAICSavingsBank,G.R.No.146531,18March2005,453SCRA747.

38RulesofCourt,Rule3,Sec.7.

39345Phil.250,269270(1997).

40Citing67AC.J.S.646649.

41MarcelinoArcelona,etal.v.CourtofAppeals,etal.,supranote39,at267citingBorlasav.Polistico,47Phil.345,347,28January1925.

42Id.

43Id.at268.

44Moldes.v.Villanueva,G.R.No.161955,31August2005,468SCRA697,708citingCommissionerAndreaD.Domingov.HerbertMarkusEmilScheer,G.R.No.154745,29January2004,421SCRA468.

45BookII,Chapter4,Art.4,Sec.129.

46Sec.395par.(e)subpars.(1)and(3).

47GovernmentAccountingandAuditingManual(GAAM),Sec.167.

11/20/2015 G.R.No.159794


48AquilinoQ.Pimentel,Jr.,TheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991,TheKeytoNationalDevelopment,1993,p.393.

49GovernmentAccountingandAuditingManual,Sec.168.

50Itisgenerallywithinthelegislativeprovincetodirectinwhatway,throughwhatboardofmunicipalofficersoragents,orbywhatmunicipalofficersthepowersgivenshallbeexercised.CitingAngeles,RestatementoftheLawonLocalGovernmentsciting2AMcQuillin,TheLawofMunicipalCorporations,Sec.10.27(3rded.)Ravettinov.SanDiego,70CalApp2d37,160P2d1035.

51Rollo,p.153.ExceptforAliribaS.Macarambonwhowasreplacedbyhiswife,FatimaMacarambonfortheofficeofBarangayChairmen,allrespondentswerereelected,thus:

NameofBarangay ElectedPunongBarangayPaigoay FatimaMacarambonLinindangan SalimatarSaripMapantao CadarLomalaSaripIlian PangcogaAbulkhayerShariefRangiran AbdulUsman

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation