En Banc]. [3](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt3l) CONST., art. XII, sec. 10 provides: Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associatio

En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt3l) CONST., art. XII, sec.

10 provides: Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.

In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt4l) CONST., art.

XII, sec. 2, par. (1) provides: Section 2.

All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces ·of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.

The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt5l) CONST.,art. XII, sec. 11 provides: Section 11.

No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public ' utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the cof!1mon good so requires. The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general public.

The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt6l) CONST.(1935), art. XII, sec.

1 provides: Section 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces or potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time ·of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution.

Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development or utilization ion of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant. CONST.(1935), art. XIII, sec.

8 provides: Section 8. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or other entities organized under the laws of the Philippines, sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by citizens of the Philippines, nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. No franchise or right shall be granted to any individual, firm, or corporation, except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the National Assembly when the public interest so requires.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt7l) CONST. (1973), art. XIV, sec.

5 provides: Section 5. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal in by the National Assembly when the public interest so requires.

The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be· limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof. CONST.

(1973), art. XIV, sec. 9 provides: Section 9.

The disposition, exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural resources of the Philippines shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The National Assembly, in the national interest, may allow such citizens, corporations, or associations to enter into service contracts for financial, technical, management, or other forms of assistance with any foreign person or entity for the exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural resources. Existing valid and binding service contracts for financial, technical, management, or other forms of assistance are hereby recognized as such.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt8l) CONST., art. XIV, sec. 4 (2) provides: Section 4.

(2) Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines 01; corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions. CONST., art.

XVI, sec. 11 provides: SECTION 11. (1) The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens.

The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be allowed.

(2) The· advertising industry is impressed with public interest, and shall be regulated by law for the protection of consumers and the promotion of the general welfare. Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least seventy per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities in such industry shall be limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof, and all the executive and managing officers of such entities must be citizens of the Philippines.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt9l)CONST., art. II, sec. 20 provides: Section 20.

The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt10l) CONST., art. II, sec.

19: Section 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt11l) RIGOBERTO D. TIGLAO, COLLOSAL DECTPTION: How FOREIGNERS CONTROL OUR TELECOMS SECTOR (2016).

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt12l) Dissenting Opinion of J. Leonen in Roy v Herbosa , G.R. No. 207246, November 22, 2016 < j http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer. html?file=/jurisprudence/20l6/november2016/207246 leone n.pdt> 6 [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc], citing Dissenting Opinion of .J. Mendoza in Royv. Herbosa , G.R. No. 207246, November 22, 2016 < http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/november2016/207246 mend oza.pdf> 21 [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt13l) Dissenting Opinion of J. Leonen in Roy v. Herhosa , GR. No. 207246, November 22, 2016 < http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file/jurisprudence/20l6/november2016/707246 leone n.pdf> 6-7 [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt14l) Dissenting Opinion of J. Leonen in Roy i: llcrhosa, G.R. No).

207246, November 22, 2016, < http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file/jurisprudence/2016/november2016/207246 leone n.pdf> [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc] (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt15l) Dissenting Opinion of J. Leonen ip Narra Nickel Mining & Development Corp. v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp., 733 Phil. 365. 420-490(2014) [Per J. Velasco, Third Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt16l) Dissenting Opinion of J. Leonen in Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corp. v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp., G.R. No. 195580, January 28, 2015, 748 SCRA 455, 492-510 [Per J. Velasco, Special Third Division Resolution].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt17l) Dissenting Opinion of J. Leonen in Narra Nickel Mining & Development Corp. v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp., 733 Phil. 365, 468(2014) [Per J. Velasco, Third Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt18l) Id. at 4 78.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt19l) Narra Nickel Mining andDevelopment Corp. v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp., G.R. No. 195580, January 28, 2015, 748 SCRA 455, 477-4 78 [Per J. Velasco, Special Third Division Resolution]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt20l) CONST., preamble. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt21l) CONST., art.

II, sec. 19. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt22l) Com.

Act No. 108, as amended. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt23l) Com. Act No.

108, sec. I provides: Section I. In all cases in which any constitutional or legal provision requires Philippine or United States citizenship as a requisite for the exercise or enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege, any citizen of the Philippines or the United States who allows his name or citizenship to be used for the purpose of evading such provision, and any alien or foreigner profiting thereby, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than ten years, and by a fine of not less than two thousand nor more than ten thousand pesos. The fact that the citizen of the Philippines or of the United States charged with a violation of this Act had, at the time of the acquisition of his holdings in the corporations or associations referred to in section two of this Act, no real or personal property, credit or other assets the value of which shall at least be equivalent to said holdings, shall be admissible as circumstantial evidence of a violation of this Act.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt24l) Com. Act No. 108, sec .. 2 provides: Section 2.

In all cases in which a constitutional or legal provision requires that, in order that a corporation or association may exercise or enjoy a right, franchise or privilege, not less than a certain per centum of its capital must be own1!d by citizens of the Philippines or the United States, or both, it shall be unlawful to falsely simulate the existence of such minimum of stock or capital as owned by such citizens of the Philippines or the United States or both, for the purpose of evading said provision. The president or managers and directors or trustees of corporations or associations convicted of a violation of this section shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than ten years, and by a fine of not less than two thousand nor more than ten thousand pesos. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt25l) Com.

Act No. 108, sec. 2-A provides: Section 2-A. Any person, corporation, or association[,] which, having in its name or under its control, a right, franchise, privilege, property or business, the exercise or enjoyment of which is expressly reserved by the Constitution or the laws to citizens of the Philippines or of any other specific country, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, permits or allows the use, exploitation or enjoyment thereof by a person, corporation or association not possessing the requisites prescribed by the Constitution or the laws of the Philippines; or leases, or in any other way, transfers or conveys said right, franchise, privilege, property or business to a person, corporation or association not otherwise qualified under the Constitution, or the provisions of the existing laws; or in any manner permits or allows any person, not possessing the qualifications required by the Constitution, or existing laws to acquire, use, exploit or enjoy a right, franchise, privilege, property or business, the exercise and enjoyment of which are expressly reserved by the Constitution or existing Jaws to citizens of the Philippines or of any other specific country, to intervene in the management, operation, administration or control thereof, whether as an officer, employee or laborer therein with or without remuneration except technical personnel whose employment may be specifically authorized by the Secretary of Justice.

and any person who knowingly aids, assists or abets in the planning, consummation or perpetration or any of the acts herein above enumerated shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than fifteen years and by a fine of not less than the value of the right, franchise or privilege enjoyed or acquired in violation of the provisions hereof but in no case less than five thousand pesos: Provided, however, that the president, managers or pe1:sons in charge of corporations, associations or partnerships violati.ng the provisions of this section shall be criminally liable in lieu theredf: Provided. fu1iher, That any person, corporation or association shall, in addition to the penalty imposed herein. forfeit such right, franchise, privilege, and the property or business enjoyed or acquired in violation of the provisions of this Act: and Provided, finally, That the election of aliens as members of the board of directors or governing body of corporations or associations engaging in partially nationalized activities shall be allowed in proportion to their allowable participation or share in the capital of such entities.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt26l) Sec. of Justice Op. No. 165, s. 1984.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt27l) Dissenting Opinion of J. Leonen in Narra Nickel Mining & Development Corp. v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp., 733 Phil. 365, 478-479 (2014) [Per J. Velasco, Third Division]. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation [](javascript:history.back\(1\)) [](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#top) CONCURRING OPINION VELASCO, JR.,J.: I concur with the denial of the motion for reconsideration, which still fails to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) when it issued Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 8. For purposes of emphasis, I restate part of my Concurring Opinion to the main Decision: The petition is anchored on the contention that the SEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing MC No. 8.

By grave abuse of discretion, the petitioners must prove that the Commission's act was tainted with the quality of whim and caprice. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#fnt1v) Abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be shown that the Commission exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner because of passion or personal hostility that is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#fnt2v) With this standard in mind, the petitioner and petitioners-intervention failed to demonstrate that the SEC's issuance of MC No. 8 was attended with grave abuse of discretion.1âwphi1 On the contrary, the assailed circular sufficiently applied the Court's definitive ruling in Gamboa.

To recall, Gamboa construed the word "capital" and the nationality requirement in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution, which states: SECTION 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens , nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years.

Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general public.

The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital , and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#fnt3v) The Court explained in the June 28, 2011 Decision in Gamboa that the term "capital" in Section 11, Article XII refers "only to shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors." The rationale provided by the majority was that this interpretation ensures that control of the Board of Directors stays in the hands of Filipinos, since foreigners can only own a maximum of 40% of said shares and, accordingly, can only elect the equivalent percentage of directors.

As a necessary corollary, Filipino stockholders can always elect 60% of the Board of Directors which, to the majority of the Court, translates to control over the corporation. The June 28, 2011 Decision, thus, read: Considering that common shares have voting rights which translate to control, as opposed to preferred shares which usually have no voting rights, the term 'capital' in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers only to common shares. However, if the preferred shares also have the right to vote in the election of directors, then the term "capital"

shall include such preferred shares because the right to participate in the control or management of the corporation is exercised through the right to vote in the election of directors. In short,the term "capital" in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers only to shares of stock that can vote in the election of directors .

This interpretation is consistent with the intent of the framers of the Constitution to place in the hands of Filipino citizens the control and management of public utilities. As revealed in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, "capital" refers to the voting stock or controlling interest of a corporation xxx The dispositive portion of the June 28, 2011 Decision in Gamboa clearly spelled out the doctrinal declaration of the Court on the meaning of "capital"

in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution, viz.:

WHEREFORE, we PARTLY GRANT the petition and rule that the term "capital " in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution refers only to shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors , and thus in the present case only to common shares, and not to the total outstanding capital stock (common and non-voting preferred shares). Respondent Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission is DIRECTED to apply this definition of the term "capital" in determining the extent of allowable foreign ownership in respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, and if there is a violation of Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution, to impose the appropriate sanctions under the law. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#fnt4v) The motions for reconsideration of the June 28, 2011 Decision filed by the movants in Gamboa argued against the application of the term "capital" to the voting shares alone and in favor of applying the term to the total outstanding capital stock (combined total of voting and non-voting shares). Notably, none of them contended or moved for the application of the capital or the 60-40 requirement to "each and every class of shares" of a public utility, as it was never an issue in the case. In resolving the motions for reconsideration in Gamboa, it is relevant to stress that the majority did not modify the June 28, 2011 Decision. The fallo of the October 9, 2012 Resolution simply stated- WHEREFORE, we DENY the motions for reconsideration WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Clearly, the Court had no intention, express or otherwise, to amend the construction of the term "capital" in the June 28, 2011 Decision in Gamboa, much less in the manner proposed by petitioner Roy. Hence, no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the SEC in applying the term "capital" to the "voting shares" of a corporation. The portion quoted by the petitioners is nothing more than an obiter dictum that has never been discussed as an issue during the deliberations in Gamboa. As such, it is not a binding pronouncement of the Court(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#fnt5v) that can be used as basis to declare the SEC' s circular as unconstitutional. x x x x x x x x x Thus, the zealous watchfulness demonstrated by the SEC in imposing another tier of protection for Filipino stockholders cannot, therefore, be penalized on a misreading of the October 9, 2012 Resolution in Gamboa , which neither added nor subtracted anything from the June 28, 2011 Decision defining capital as "shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors." It must also be stressed that the Decision in Gamboa was issued pursuant to this Court's symbolic function. It was meant as a definitive ruling for the education of the bench, bar, and the public in general on the meaning of the word "capital" in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution, and not as a resolution exclusively applicable to a particular public utility. Accordingly, instead of resolving the charges against PLDT, the Court directed the SEC to "apply this definition of the term 'capital' in determining the extent of allowable foreign ownership in respondent [PLDT]." Presently, the SEC clarified that it "has not yet issued a definitive ruling anent PLDT's compliance with the limitation on foreign ownership imposed under the Constitution and relevant laws." It is, therefore, premature and presumptuous for this Court to adjudge as erroneous a ruling that is still to be rendered by the SEC. Least of all, not being a trier of facts nor specially equipped to investigate the intricacies of corporate structures and the identities of capital market participants, this Court cannot declare a corporation as noncompliant with the nationality requirement by, without more, a mere cursory review of its General Information Sheets. With the drastic consequences of such a ruling, which includes the possible revocation of its franchise, all parties affected---the corporate public utility, its investors both in equity and debt, and all its other stakeholders--- deserve more than a passing treatment by this Court. The SEC, the government agency specifically tasked to review corporate matters, is better-suited to fairly rule, after a full-blown investigation, on the compliance by corporate public utilities with the nationality requirement. Furthermore, in Gamboa, this Court construed "capital" as equivalent to the "shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of, directors " and so, sustaining the petitioner's contention that it is through voting that control over a corporation is exercised, it ruled that 60% of the voting shares or the "shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors " in corporate public utilities are reserved for Filipinos. Thus, the June 28, 2011 Gamboa Decision emphatically stated, viz.: Indisputably, one of the rights of a stockholder is the right to participate in the control or management of the corporation. 1âwphi1 This is exercised through his vote in the election of directors because it is the board of directors that controls or manages the corporation. In the absence of provisions in the articles of incorporation denying voting rights to preferred shares, preferred shares have the same voting rights as common shares. However, preferred shareholders are often excluded from any control, that is, deprived of the right to vote in the election of directors and on other matters, on the theory that the preferred shareholders are merely investors in the corporation for income in the same manner as bondholders. In fact, under the Corporation Code only preferred or redeemable shares can be deprived of the right to vote. Common shares cannot be deprived of the right to vote in any corporate meeting, and any provision in the articles of incorporation restricting the right of common shareholders to vote is invalid. Considering that common shares have voting rights which translate to control, as opposed to preferred shares which usually have no voting rights, the term capital in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers only to common shares. However, if the preferred shares also have the right to vote in the election of directors, then the term capital shall include such preferred shares because the right to participate in the control or management of the corporation is exercised through the right to vote in the election of directors.In short, the term capital in Section 11. Article XII of the Constitution refers only to shares of stock that can vote in the election of directors. Thus, the Court cannot now feign that the construction in Gamboa of the term "capital" is confined and limited only to "common shares," to the exclusion of voting preferred shares. Adopting this regrettably myopic view will certainly revise and alter the final decision and resolution in Gamboa. For the foregoing, I vote to deny with finality the present Motion for Reconsideration. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR Associate Justice Footnotes (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt1v) OKS Designtech, Inc. v. Caccam, G.R. No. 211263 August 5, 2015. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt2v) Gold City Integrated Services, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 71771-73, March 31, 1989; citing Arguelles v. Young, No. L-59880, September 11, 1987, 153 SCRA 690; Republic v. Heirs of Spouses Molinyawe, G.R. No. 217120, April 18, 2016; Olano v. Lim Eng Co, G.R. No. 195835, March 14, 2016; City of Iloilo v. Honrado, G.R. No. 160399, December 9, 2015; OKS Designtech, Inc. v. Caccam, G.R. No. 211263, August 5, 2015. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt3v) Emphasis supplied. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt4v) Emphasis supplied. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#rnt5v) Ocean East Agency, Corp. v. Lopez, G.R. No. 194410, October 14, 2015. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation [](javascript:history.back\(1\)) [](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr207246so2017.html#top)