2_usa v. guinto

8/13/2019 2_USA v. Guinto

1/8

# 2 G.R. No. 76607 February 26, 1990

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FREDERICK M.SMOUSE AND YVONNE REEVES, petitioners,vs.HON. ELIODORO B. GUINTO, Presiding Judge,

Branch LVII, Regional Trial Court, AngelesCity, ROBERTO T. VALENCIA, EMERENCIANA C.TANGLAO, AND PABLO C. DELPILAR, respondents.

G.R. No. 79470 February 26, 1990

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ANTHONYLAMACHIA, T/SGT. USAF, WILFREDO BELSA,PETER ORASCION AND ROSECARTALLA, petitioners,vs.HON. RODOLFO D. RODRIGO, as Presiding

Judge of Branch 7, Regional Trial Court(BAGUIO CITY), La Trinidad, Benguet andFABIAN GENOVE, respondents.

G.R. No. 80018 February 26, 1990

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TOMI J. KINGI,DARREL D. DYE and STEVEN F.BOSTICK, petitioners,vs.HON. JOSEFINA D. CEBALLOS, As PresidingJudge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 66,Capas, Tarlac, and LUIS

BAUTISTA, respondents.

G.R. No. 80258 February 26, 1990

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MAJORGENERAL MICHAEL P. C. CARNS, AIC ERNESTE. RIVENBURGH, AIC ROBIN BLEVINS, SGT.NOEL A. GONZALES, SGT. THOMAS MITCHELL,SGT. WAYNE L. BENJAMIN, ETAL.,petitioners,vs.HON. CONCEPCION S. ALARCON VERGARA, asPresiding Judge, Branch 62 REGIONAL TRIALCOURT, Angeles City, and RICKY SANCHEZ,FREDDIE SANCHEZ AKA FREDDIE RIVERA,EDWIN MARIANO, AKA JESSIE DOLORESSANGALANG, ET AL., respondents.

Familiar ni nga cases, Consti 1

These cases have been consolidated becausethey all involve the doctrine of state immunity.The United States of America was notimpleaded in the complaints below but hasmoved to dismiss on the ground that they are ineffect suits against it to which it has notconsented. It is now contesting the denial of itsmotions by the respondent judges.

First Case

In G.R. No. 76607, the private respondents aresuing several officers of the U.S. Air Forcestationed in Clark Air Base in connection withthe bidding conducted by them for contractsfor barber services in the said base.

On February 24, 1986, the Western PacificContracting Office, Okinawa Area Exchange,

U.S. Air Force, solicited bids for such contractsthrough its contracting officer, James F. Shaw.Among those who submitted their bids wereprivate respondents Roberto T. Valencia,Emerenciana C. Tanglao, and Pablo C. delPilar. The three PR had been concessionairesfor several years (34, 12, 50 respectively).

The bidding was won by Ramon Dizon, over theobjection of the private respondents, whoclaimed that he had made a bid for fourfacilities, including the Civil Engineering Area,which was not included in the invitation to bid.

The private respondents complained to thePhilippine Area Exchange (PHAX). The latter,through its representatives, petitioners YvonneReeves and Frederic M. Smouse explained thatthe Civil Engineering (CE) concession had notbeen awarded to Dizon as a result of theFebruary 24, 1986 solicitation. Dizon wasalready operating this concession, and theexpiration of the contract had been extendedfrom June 30, 1986 to August 31, 1986. Theyfurther explained that the solicitation of the CEbarbershop would be available only by the end

of June and the private respondents would benotified.

On June 30, 1986, the private respondents fileda complaint in the court below to compel PHAXand the individual petitioners to cancel theaward to defendant Dizon, to conduct arebidding for the barbershop concessions and toallow the private respondents by a writ of


2/8

preliminary injunction to continue operatingthe concessions pending litigation.

On July 22, 1986, the petitioners filed a motionto dismiss (MTD) and opposition to the petitionfor preliminary injunction (WPI) on the ground

that the action was in effect a suit against theUnited States of America, which had notwaived its non-suability. The individualdefendants, as official employees of the U.S.Air Force, were also immune from suit.

Second Case: G.R. No. 79470

Fabian Genove filed a complaint for damagesagainst petitioners Anthony Lamachia, WilfredoBelsa, Rose Cartalla and Peter Orascion for hisdismissal as cook in the U.S. Air ForceRecreation Center at the John Hay Air Station

in Baguio City. It had been ascertained afterinvestigation, from the testimony of Belsa,Cartalla and Orascion, that Genove had pouredurine (eeeewwww!!!) into the soup stock usedin cooking the vegetables served to the clubcustomers. Lamachia, as club manager,suspended him and thereafter referred the caseto a board of arbitrators conformably to thecollective bargaining agreement between theCenter and its employees. The boardunanimously found him guilty andrecommended his dismissal. This was effectedon March 5, 1986, by Col. David C. Kimball,

Commander of the 3rd Combat Support Group,PACAF Clark Air Force Base. Genove's reactionwas to file his complaint in the Regional TrialCourt of Baguio City against the individualpetitioners.

On March 13, 1987, the defendants, joined bythe United States of America, moved to dismissthe complaint, alleging that Lamachia, as anofficer of the U.S. Air Force stationed at JohnHay Air Station, was immune from suit for theacts done by him in his official capacity. Theyargued that the suit was in effect against the

United States, which had not given its consentto be sued.

Third Case: G.R. No. 80018

Luis Bautista, who was employed as a barracksboy in Camp O' Donnell, an extension of ClarkAir Base, was arrested following a buy-bustoperation conducted by the individual

petitioners herein, namely, Tomi J. King,Darrel D. Dye and Stephen F. Bostick, officersof the U.S. Air Force and special agents of theAir Force Office of Special Investigators(AFOSI). On the basis of the sworn statementsmade by them, an information for violation ofR.A. 6425, otherwise known as the DangerousDrugs Act, was filed against Bautista in theRegional Trial Court of Tarlac. The above-named officers testified against him at his trial.As a result of the filing of the charge, Bautistawas dismissed from his employment. He thenfiled a complaint for damages against theindividual petitioners herein claiming that itwas because of their acts that he was removed.

During the period for filing of the answer,Mariano Y. Navarro a special counsel assignedto the International Law Division, Office of the

Staff Judge Advocate of Clark Air Base, entereda special appearance for the defendants andmoved for an extension within which to file an"answer and/or other pleadings." His reasonwas that the Attorney General of the UnitedStates had not yet designated counsel torepresent the defendants, who were being suedfor their official acts. Within the extendedperiod, the defendants, without the assistanceof counsel or authority from the U.S.Department of Justice, filed their answer. Theyalleged therein as affirmative defenses thatthey had only done their duty in theenforcement of the laws of the Philippinesinside the American bases pursuant to the RP-US Military Bases Agreement.

On May 7, 1987, the law firm of Luna, Sison andManas, having been retained to represent thedefendants, filed with leave of court a motionto withdraw the answer and dismiss thecomplaint. The ground invoked was that thedefendants were acting in their officialcapacity when they did the acts complained ofand that the complaint against them was ineffect a suit against the United States withoutits consent.

The motion was denied by the respondentjudge in his order dated September 11, 1987,which held that the claimed immunity underthe Military Bases Agreement covered onlycriminal and not civil cases. Moreover, thedefendants had come under the jurisdiction ofthe court when they submitted their answer.


3/8

Fourth Case: G.R. No. 80258

A complaint for damages was filed by theprivate respondents against the hereinpetitioners (except the United States ofAmerica), for injuries allegedly sustained by

the plaintiffs as a result of the acts of thedefendants. According to the plaintiffs, thedefendants beat them up, handcuffed themand unleashed dogs on them which bit them inseveral parts of their bodies and causedextensive injuries to them. The defendantsdeny this and claim the plaintiffs were arrestedfor theft and were bitten by the dogs becausethey were struggling and resisting arrest. Thedefendants stress that the dogs were called offand the plaintiffs were immediately taken tothe medical center for treatment of theirwounds.

In a motion to dismiss the complaint, theUnited States of America and the individuallynamed defendants argued that the suit was ineffect a suit against the United States, whichhad not given its consent to be sued. Thedefendants were also immune from suit underthe RP-US Bases Treaty for acts done by themin the performance of their official functions.

The motion to dismiss was denied by the trialcourt in its order dated August 10, 1987,reading in part as follows: The complaint

alleged criminal acts against the individually-named defendants and from the nature of saidacts it could not be said that they are Acts ofState, for which immunity should be invoked.

ISSUE: Whether the defendants were alsoimmune from suit under the RP-US Bases Treatyfor acts done by them in the performance oftheir official duties.

HELD:

First case: They cannot plead immunity

Second case: remanded to RTC

Third case: Immune; they were acting in theirofficial capacity

Fourth case: acting in their proprietarycapacity; but they are not liable based on thefacts of the case

RATIO:

(unahon sa ug discuss ang State immunitychurvabels)

The rule that a state may not be sued withoutits consent, now expressed in Article XVI,Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution, is one ofthe generally accepted principles ofinternational law that we have adopted as partof the law of our land under Article II, Section2.

Even without such affirmation, we would stillbe bound by the generally accepted principles

of international law under the doctrine ofincorporation. Under this doctrine, as acceptedby the majority of states, such principles aredeemed incorporated in the law of everycivilized state as a condition and consequenceof its membership in the society of nations.Upon its admission to such society, the state isautomatically obligated to comply with theseprinciples in its relations with other states.

As applied to the local state, the doctrine ofstate immunity is based on the justificationgiven by Justice Holmes that "there can be no

legal right against the authority which makesthe law on which the right depends." There areother practical reasons for the enforcement ofthe doctrine. In the case of the foreign statesought to be impleaded in the localjurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressedin the maximpar in parem, non habetimperium. All states are sovereign equals andcannot assert jurisdiction over one another. Acontrary disposition would, in the language of acelebrated case, "unduly vex the peace ofnations."

While the doctrine appears to prohibit onlysuits against the state without its consent, it isalso applicable to complaints filed againstofficials of the state for acts allegedlyperformed by them in the discharge of theirduties. The rule is that if the judgment againstsuch officials will require the state itself toperform an affirmative act to satisfy the same,such as the appropriation of the amount


4/8

needed to pay the damages awarded againstthem, the suit must be regarded as against thestate itself although it has not been formallyimpleaded. In such a situation, the state maymove to dismiss the complaint on the groundthat it has been filed without its consent.

The doctrine is sometimes derisively called"the royal prerogative of dishonesty"becauseof the privilege it grants the state to defeatany legitimate claim against it by simplyinvoking its non-suability. That is hardly fair, atleast in democratic societies, for the state isnot an unfeeling tyrant unmoved by the validclaims of its citizens. In fact, the doctrine isnot absolute and does not say the state maynot be sued under any circumstance. On thecontrary, the rule says that the state may notbe sued without its consent, which clearly

imports that it may be sued if it consents.

The consent of the state to be sued may bemanifested expressly or impliedly. Expressconsent may be embodied in a general law or aspecial law. Consent is implied when the stateenters into a contract or it itself commenceslitigation.

The general law waiving the immunity of thestate from suit is found in Act No. 3083, underwhich the Philippine government "consents andsubmits to be sued upon any moneyed claim

involving liability arising from contract, expressor implied, which could serve as a basis of civilaction between private parties." In Merritt v.Government of thePhilippine Islands, a speciallaw was passed to enable a person to sue thegovernment for an alleged tort. When thegovernment enters into a contract, it isdeemed to have descended to the level of theother contracting party and divested of itssovereign immunity from suit with its impliedconsent. Waiver is also implied when thegovernment files a complaint, thus openingitself to a counterclaim.

The above rules are subject to qualification.Express consent is effected only by the will ofthe legislature through the medium of a dulyenacted statute. We have held that not allcontracts entered into by the government willoperate as a waiver of its non-suability;distinction must be made between its sovereignand proprietary acts. As for the filing of a

complaint by the government, suability willresult only where the government is claimingaffirmative relief from the defendant.

In the case of the United States of America, thecustomary rule of international law on state

immunity is expressed with more specificity inthe RP-US Bases Treaty. Article III thereofprovides as follows:

It is mutually agreed that the United Statesshall have the rights, power and authoritywithin the bases which are necessary for theestablishment, use, operation and defensethereof or appropriate for the control thereofand all the rights, power and authority withinthe limits of the territorial waters and air spaceadjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the baseswhich are necessary to provide access to them

or appropriate for their control.

The petitioners also rely heavily on Baer v.Tizon, along with several other decisions, tosupport their position that they are not suablein the cases below, the United States nothaving waived its sovereign immunity from suit.It is emphasized that in Baer, the Court held:

The invocation of the doctrine of immunityfrom suit of a foreign state without its consentis appropriate. More specifically, insofar asalien armed forces is concerned, the starting

point isRaquiza v. Bradford, a 1945 decision.

Cases cited in the decision of Raquiza:

Coleman v. Tennessee: 'It is well settled that aforeign army, permitted to march through afriendly country or to be stationed in it, bypermission of its government or sovereign, isexemptfrom the civil and criminal jurisdictionof the place.'Accuracy demands theclarification that after the conclusion of thePhilippine-American Military Bases Agreement,the treaty provisions should control on such

matter, the assumption being that there was amanifestation of the submission to jurisdictionon the part of the foreign power wheneverappropriate.

Syquia v. Almeda Lopez (consti napudoh!kadtong naglease ug apartment chu chu,ako na delete ang facts)decision sa Syquia:the 4 action must be considered as one against


5/8

the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government hasnot given its consent to the filing of this suitwhich is essentially against her, though not inname. Moreover, this is not only a case of acitizen filing a suit against his own Governmentwithout the latter's consent but it is of a citizenfiling an action against a foreign governmentwithout said government's consent, whichrenders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction ofthe courts of his country. ( please see othercases belowest)

It bears stressing at this point that the aboveobservations do not confer on the United Statesof America a blanket immunity for all acts doneby it or its agents in the Philippines. Neithermay the other petitioners claim that they arealso insulated from suit in this country merelybecause they have acted as agents of the

United States in the discharge of their officialfunctions.

There is no question that the United States ofAmerica, like any other state, will be deemedto have impliedly waived its non-suability if ithas entered into a contract in its proprietary orprivate capacity. It is only when the contractinvolves its sovereign or governmental capacitythat no such waiver may be implied. This wasour ruling inUnitedStates of America v.Ruiz,22where the transaction in question dealtwith the improvement of the wharves in the

naval installation at Subic Bay. As this was aclearly governmental function, we held thatthe contract did not operate to divest theUnited States of its sovereign immunity fromsuit. In the words of Justice Vicente AbadSantos:

The traditional rule of immunity exempts aState from being sued in the courts of anotherState without its consent or waiver. This rule isa necessary consequence of the principles ofindependence and equality of States. However,the rules of International Law are not petrified;

they are constantly developing and evolving.And because the activities of states havemultiplied, it has been necessary to distinguishthem between sovereign and governmentalacts (jure imperii) and private, commercial andproprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result isthat State immunity now extends only to actsjure imperii The restrictive application of Stateimmunity is now the rule in the United States,

the United kingdom and other states in WesternEurope.

xxx xxx xxx

The restrictive application of State immunity is

proper only when the proceedings arise out ofcommercial transactions of the foreignsovereign, its commercial activities oreconomic affairs. Stated differently, a Statemay be said to have descended to the level ofan individual and can thus be deemed to havetacitly given its consent to be sued only when itenters into business contracts. It does not applywhere the contract relates to the exercise ofits sovereign functions. In this case the projectsare an integral part of the naval base which isdevoted to the defense of both the UnitedStates and the Philippines, indisputably a

function of the government of the highestorder; they are not utilized for nor dedicatedto commercial or business purposes.

The other petitioners in the cases before us allaver they have acted in the discharge of theirofficial functions as officers or agents of theUnited States. However, this is a matter ofevidence. The charges against them may not besummarily dismissed on their mere assertionthat their acts are imputable to the UnitedStates of America, which has not given itsconsent to be sued. In fact, the defendants are

sought to be held answerable for personal tortsin which the United States itself is notinvolved. If found liable, they and they alonemust satisfy the judgment.

In Festejo v. Fernando, a bureau director,acting without any authority whatsoever,appropriated private land and converted it intopublic irrigation ditches. Sued for the value ofthe lots invalidly taken by him, he moved todismiss the complaint on the ground that thesuit was in effect against the Philippinegovernment, which had not given its consent to

be sued. This Court sustained the denial of themotion and held that the doctrine of stateimmunity was not applicable. The director wasbeing sued in his private capacity for a personaltort.

With these considerations in mind, we nowproceed to resolve the cases at hand.


6/8

Third case:

It is clear from a study of the records of G.R.No. 80018 that the individually-namedpetitioners therein were acting in the exerciseof their official functions when they conducted

the buy-bust operation against the complainantand thereafter testified against him at his trial.The said petitioners were in fact connectedwith the Air Force Office of SpecialInvestigators and were charged precisely withthe function of preventing the distribution,possession and use of prohibited drugs andprosecuting those guilty of such acts. It cannotfor a moment be imagined that they wereacting in their private or unofficial capacitywhen they apprehended and later testifiedagainst the complainant. It follows that fordischarging their duties as agents of the United

States, they cannot be directly impleaded foracts imputable to their principal, which has notgiven its consent to be sued (so they cannot besued personally).

The private respondent invokes Article 2180 ofthe Civil Code which holds the governmentliable if it acts through a special agent. Theargument, it would seem, is premised on theground that since the officers are designated"special agents," the United States governmentshould be liable for their torts.

There seems to be a failure to distinguishbetween suability and liability and amisconception that the two terms aresynonymous. Suability depends on the consentof the state to be sued, liability on theapplicable law and the established facts. Thecircumstance that a state is suable does notnecessarily mean that it is liable; on the otherhand, it can never be held liable if it does notfirst consent to be sued. Liability is notconceded by the mere fact that the state hasallowed itself to be sued. When the state doeswaive its sovereign immunity, it is only giving

the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, thatthe defendant is liable.

The said article establishes a rule of liability,not suability. The government may be heldliable under this rule only if it first allows itselfto be sued through any of the accepted formsof consent.

Moreover, the agent performing his regularfunctions is not a special agent even if he is sodenominated, as in the case at bar. No lessimportant, the said provision appears toregulate only the relations of the local statewith its inhabitants and, hence, applies only tothe Philippine government and not to foreigngovernments impleaded in our courts.

We reject the conclusion of the trial court thatthe answer filed by the special counsel of theOffice of the Sheriff Judge Advocate of ClarkAir Base was a submission by the United Statesgovernment to its jurisdiction.express waiverof immunity cannot be made by a mere counselof the government but must be effectedthrough a duly-enacted statute. Neither doessuch answer come under the implied forms ofconsent as earlier discussed.

The contradictory factual allegations in thiscase deserve in our view a closer study of whatactually happened to the plaintiffs. The recordis too meager to indicate if the defendantswere really discharging their official duties orhad actually exceeded their authority when theincident in question occurred. Lacking thisinformation, this Court cannot directly decidethis case. The needed inquiry must first bemade by the lower court so it may assess andresolve the conflicting claims of the parties onthe basis of the evidence that has yet to be

presented at the trial. Only after it shall havedetermined in what capacity the petitionerswere acting at the time of the incident inquestion will this Court determine, if stillnecessary, if the doctrine of state immunity isapplicable.

Fourth Case

Private respondent Genove was employed as acook in the Main Club located at the U.S. AirForce Recreation Center. As manager of thiscomplex, petitioner Lamachia is responsible foreleven diversified activities Under hisexecutive management are three servicerestaurants, a cafeteria, a bakery, a Class VIstore, a coffee and pantry shop, a main cashiercage, an administrative office, and a


7/8

decentralized warehouse. He supervises 167employees, one of whom was Genove, withwhom the United States government hasconcluded a collective bargaining agreement.

From these circumstances, the Court can

assume that the restaurant services offered atthe John Hay Air Station partake of the natureof a business enterprise undertaken by theUnited States government in its proprietarycapacity. Such services are not extended to theAmerican servicemen for free as a perquisite ofmembership in the Armed Forces of the UnitedStates. Neither does it appear that they areexclusively offered to these servicemen; on thecontrary, it is well known that they areavailable to the general public as well,including the tourists in Baguio City. Althoughthe prices are concededly reasonable and

relatively low, such services are undoubtedlyoperated for profit, as a commercial and not agovernmental activity.

The consequence of this finding is that thepetitioners cannot invoke the doctrine of stateimmunity to justify the dismissal of the damagesuit against them by Genove. Such defense willnot prosper even if it be established that theywere acting as agents of the United Stateswhen they investigated and later dismissedGenove. For that matter, not even the UnitedStates government itself can claim such

immunity. The reason is that by entering intothe employment contract with Genove in thedischarge of its proprietary functions, itimpliedly divested itself of its sovereignimmunity from suit.

But these considerations notwithstanding, wehold that the complaint against the petitionersin the court below must still be dismissed.While suable, the petitioners are neverthelessnot liable. It is obvious that the claim fordamages cannot be allowed on the strength ofthe evidence before us, which we have

carefully examined.

The dismissal of the private respondent wasdecided upon only after a thoroughinvestigation where it was established beyonddoubt that he had polluted the soup stock withurine. The investigation, in fact, did not stopthere. Despite the definitive finding ofGenove's guilt, the case was still referred to

the board of arbitrators provided for in thecollective bargaining agreement. This boardunanimously affirmed the findings of theinvestigators and recommended Genove'sdismissal. There was nothing arbitrary aboutthe proceedings. The petitioners acted quiteproperly in terminating the privaterespondent's employment for his unbelievablynauseating act. It is surprising that he shouldstill have the temerity to file his complaint fordamages after committing his utterly disgustingoffense.

First Case

We also find that the barbershops subject ofthe concessions granted by the United Statesgovernment are commercial enterprisesoperated by private persons. They are not

agencies of the United States Armed Forces norare their facilities demandable as a matter ofright by the American servicemen. Theseestablishments provide for the grooming needsof their customers and offer not only the basichaircut and shave (as required in most militaryorganizations) but such other amenities asshampoo, massage, manicure and other similarindulgences. And all for a fee. Interestingly,one of the concessionaires, private respondentValencia, was even sent abroad to improve histonsorial business, presumably for the benefitof his customers. No less significantly, if not

more so, all the barbershop concessionaires areunder the terms of their contracts, required toremit to the United States government fixedcommissions in consideration of the exclusiveconcessions granted to them in their respectiveareas.

This being the case, the petitioners cannotplead any immunity from the complaint filed bythe private respondents in the court below.The contracts in question being decidedlycommercial, the conclusion reached inthe United States of America v. Ruizcase

cannot be applied here.

Second Case

The Court would have directly resolved theclaims against the defendants as we have donein G.R. No. 79470, except for the paucity of therecord in the case at hand. The evidence of thealleged irregularity in the grant of the


8/8

barbershop concessions is not before us. Thismeans that, as in G.R. No. 80258, therespondent court will have to receive thatevidence first, so it can later determine on thebasis thereof if the plaintiffs are entitled to therelief they seek. Accordingly, this case mustalso be remanded to the court below forfurther proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Continuation of cited cases:

Marvel Building Corporation v. Philippine WarDamage Commission: where respondent, aUnited States Agency established tocompensate damages suffered by thePhilippines during World War II was held asfalling within the above doctrine as the suit

against it would eventually be a charge againstor financial liability of the United StatesGovernment because ... , the Commission hasno funds of its own for the purpose of payingmoney judgments.'

Marquez Lim v. Nelson: involving a complaintfor the recovery of a motor launch, plusdamages, the special defense interposed being'that the vessel belonged to the United StatesGovernment, that the defendants merely actedas agents of said Government, and that theUnited States Government is therefore the real

party in interest.'

PhilippineAlien Property Administration v.Castelo: where it was held that a suit againstAlien Property Custodian and the AttorneyGeneral of the United States involving vestedproperty under the Trading with the Enemy Actis in substance a suit against the United States.

Parreno v. McGranery: as the following excerptfrom the opinion of justice Tuazon clearlyshows: 'It is a widely accepted principle ofinternational law, which is made a part of the

law of the land (Article II, Section 3 of theConstitution), that a foreign state may not bebrought to suit before the courts of anotherstate or its own courts without its consent.'

Johnson v. Turner (last!) an appeal by thedefendant, then Commanding General,Philippine Command (Air Force, with office atClark Field) from a decision ordering the return

to plaintiff of the confiscated military paymentcertificates known as scrip money. In reversingthe lower court decision, this Tribunal, throughJustice Montemayor, relied on Syquia v.AlmedaLopez, explaining why it could not besustained.

Gamay ra kayo ko gitangtang ani..murag one

page ra man guro ang nawala. Tsada man gud

ang gipang-cite na caseshihi

2_usa v. guinto

Documents