SUPREME COURT OF THE PHIL!PP!

NES
P\.'8UC !NFORMATlON OFF!CE

~~ f.',, ~Jl1n
\1~
~t
BY~~~~
Tlfvl!::: 4.t
V8
"J.1)
l!::!/

l\epublic of tbe l@biltppine~

~upreme <!Court
:iflllan Ha

EN BANC

METRO LAUNDRY SERVICES, G.R. No. 252411

represented by ROWELA T. TINDOG,
Heir of Proprietor, MS. ELIZABETH Present:
T. TINDOG,
Petitioner, GESMUNDO, CJ,
PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,
- versus - HERNANDO,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
INTING,
ZALAMEDA,
LOPEZ, M.,
THE COMMISSION PROPER, GAERLAN,
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, and THE ROSARIO,
CITY OF MANILA, LOPEZ, J.,
Respondents. DIMAAMPAO, and
MARQUEZ,JJ

Promulgated:
February 15, 2022

C);;;;/;--~
x--------------------------------------------------------------~~--=-----------x
RESOLUTION

LOPEZ, M., J.:

This Petition for Certiorari 1 under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of
the Revised Rules of Court assails the Commission on Audit (COA) Proper
Decision No. 2020-043 2 dated January l 0, 2020, which denied Metro Laundry

1
Rollo, pp. 3-27.
2
Id. at 29-34. Composed of Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo, Commissioners Jose A. Fabia,
and Roland C. Pondoc.
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 252411 '
February 15, 2022

Services' (Metro Laundry) money claim for the unpaid services it rendered at
the Ospital ng Maynila Medical Center (OMMC).

FACTS

The City of Manila, through its Bids and Awards Committee (BAC),
conducted a public bidding to procure "Laundry Services of Soiled and Dirty
Linens for the 3rd and 4th Quarter of 2010" 3 for OMMC with an approved
budget of Pl,080,000.00. Metro Laundry was declared the winning bidder as
evidenced by BAC Resolution No. 2010-327 and Notice of Award4 dated
September 6, 2010. Metro Laundry then provided laundry services to OMMC
in accordance with the terms of the contract. 5 The contract expired on
December 31, 2010, but OMMC retained Metro Laundry's services from
January 1, 2011 to March 31, 2011 upon the request of Dr. Janet del Mundo-
Tan, then Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Hospital Director of OMCC. For this
purpose, the City of Manila and Metro Laundry executed an Extension
Contract of Services6 with the same terms and conditions as in the previous
contract.

The controversy spawned when OMMC further retained Metro

Laundry's services from April 1, 2011 to December 2011, and Metro Laundry
was not compensated due to the City of Manila's lack of funds for fiscal years
2011 and 2012. 7 No written contract was executed for this extension, 8 but the
OMMC issued a Certificate of Acceptance9 and Certificate ofUse 10 showing
that Metro Laundry rendered actual services.

Metro Laundry's efforts to collect its receivables from OMMC

eventually resulted in the inclusion of its claim, amounting to Pl ,851,814.45,
in the City of Manila's budget for 2013 under the OMMC's "Prior Year's
Obligations." 11 The City Budget Office, Office of the City Accountant, and
City Treasurer's Office issued a Certificate of Availability of Funds 12 dated
July 31, 2013 for this purpose. As well, OMMC issued a Justification 13 "to
validate [its] unpaid account incurred for the laundry services rendered by
[Metro Laundry] for the year 2011, amounting to xx x (Pl,851,814.45)[,]" 14
and to explain that its failure to pay was due to the lack of funds for the
episodic increase of housed patients, 15 which translated to more hospital
linens used. Subsequently, the Office of the City Legal Officer also issued a

3
Id. at 29.
4
Id. at 39-40.
5
Id. at 29.
6
Id. at 41-44.
7
Id. at 29-30.
8
Id. at 29.
9
Id. at 45.
10
Id. at 46.
11
Id. at 5.
12
Id. at 47.
13
Id. at 48.
14 Id.

r
1s Id.
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 252411
February 15, 2022

Justification for the Payment on Quantum Meruit 16 dated December 3, 2013,

affirming OMMC's outstanding obligation to Metro Laundrx iri the amount
of Pl,851,814.45. However, the obligation remained unsettled. Thus, through
a 2nd Indorsement 17 dated July 24, 2014 addressed to OMMC, the Office of
the City Legal Officer requested anew that the amount be included· in the
OMMC budget for 2015. Acting upon this request, Dr. Arsenio L. Pascual III,
then OIC Hospital Director, issued a 3rd Indorsement 18 dated September 3,
2014, informing the City Budget Office that the claim was included in the
OMMC's budget proposal for 2015.

Corresponding disbursement vouchers 19 were then issued, but still, the

allocated funds were not released. Instead, the City Accountant referred the
matter to the City Auditor for assessment and recommendation through a 1st
Indorsement20 dated August 24, 2015. In a Letter2 1 dated October 29, 2015,
the Supervising Auditor affirmed the previous recommendations to pay
OMMC's Pl,851,814.45-worth obligation to Metro Laundry despite lack of
written contract and prior appropriation on the basis of quantum meruit.
However, the claim was recommended to be filed directly to the COA
Proper. 22 For this reason, the Office of the City Accountant issued a
Certification23 dated January 21, 2016 stating that "based on x xx records and
documents submitted to [its] Office by Metro Laundry for services rendered
at [OMMC], the unpaid claim for the period April 01-December 31, 2011
amounts to Pl,629,926.25." 24 Metro Laundry sought correction of the amount,
but to no avail. 25 Hence, despite discrepancy in the amount, it proceeded to
file its Petition for Money Claim26 for Pl ,851,814.45 before the COA Proper
as instructed.

In an unexpected turnaround, the City of Manila denied liability and

prayed for the dismissal of Metro Laundry's monetary claim in its Answer2 7
dated May 16, 2016. Contrary to its previous acknowledgment ofliability and
affirmation to pay Metro Laundry for its services from April to December
2011, the City of Manila argued this time that the liability should be directed
against the OMMC officers who ordered the extension of the laundry services
without prior appropriation and a written contract. 28

16
Id. at 49-51.
17
Id. at 52.
18
Id. at 53.
19
Id. at 56-57.
20
Id. at 58.
21
Id. at 59.
22 Id.
23
Id. at 60.
24
Id., emphasis in the original omitted.
25
Id. at 61-62.
26
Jd.at63-70.
27
Id. at 72-74.
28
Id. at 73.

d
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 252411 '
February 15, 2022

The Supervising Auditor, through a Memorandum dated August 1,

2016, recommended the denial of the claim because of the irregularities in the
transaction, i.e., lack of public bidding, written contract, and appropriation for
the retained services. The Supervising Auditor also averred that the amount
claimed was excessive since the City Accountant alleged that services
rendered in October 2011 were already paid "per city's record under Check
No. 662432 dated February 2, 2012." 29

In a Memorandum30 dated July 11, 2017, the Regional Director of the

COA Local Government Sector National Capital Region concurred in the
Supervising Auditor's opinion, and even recommended that the alleged
amount already paid to Metro Laundry in October 2011 be returned. 31

In its assailed Decision No. 2020-043 32 dated January 10, 2020, the
COA Proper focused on the illegaljty of the extended contract. Relying mainly
upon COAResolutionNo. 86-58 33 dated November 15, 1986, the COAProper
ruled that the patent disregard of the mandatory requirements for procurement
of services under Section 1034 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9184 35 and Sections
85(1)36 and 8637 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1445 38 nullified Metro
Laundry's legal claim for payment. The COA Proper explained that, pursuant
to Section 48, 39 Book V, Title I, Subtitle B, Chapter 8 of the Administrative
Code of 1987,40 Metro Laundry's recourse should be against the OMMC
officials who secured its services in disregard of government procurement
rules. Hence, with a 2-3 vote, Metro Laundry's claim was disposed as follows:
29
Id. at 31.
30
Not attached in the rollo; mentioned in COA Decision dated January 10, 2020, id. at 31.
31
Id. at 31.
32 Id. at 29-34.
33
Re: Policy on the Recovery by Government Contractors on the Basis of Quantum Meruit.
34 SEC. 10. Competitive Bidding. - All Procurement shall be done through Competitive Bidding,
except as provided for in Article XVI of this Act.
35
Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE MODERNIZATION, STANDARDIZATION AND REGULATION
OF THE PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," otherwise known as
the "GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT REFORM ACT," dated January I 0, 2003.
36
SEC. 85. Appropriation before entering into contract.-
I. No contract involving the expenditure of public funds shall be entered into unless there is an
appropriation therefor, the unexpended balance of which, free of other obligations, is sufficient to cover the
proposed expenditure.
37
SEC. 86. Certificate showing appropriation to meet contract. - Except in the case of a
contract for personal service, for supplies for current consumption or to be carried in stock not exceeding the
estimated consumption for three months, or banking transactions of government-owned or controlled banks[,]
no contract involving the expenditure of public funds by any government agency shall be entered into or
authorized unless the proper accounting official of the agency concerned shall have certified to the officer
entering into the obligation that funds have been duly appropriated for the purpose and that the amount
necessary to cover the proposed contract for the current fiscal year is available for expenditure on account
thereof, subject to verification by the auditor concerned. The certificate signed by the proper accounting
official and the auditor who verified it, shall be attached to and become an integral part of the proposed
contract, and the sum so certified shall not thereafter be available for expenditure for any other purpose until
the obligation of the government agency concerned under the contract is fully extinguished.
38
Entitled "ORDAINING AND INSTITUTING A GOVERNMENT AUDITING CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES,"
otherwise known as the "GOVERNMENT AUDITING CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES," dated June 11, 1978.
39
SEC. 48. Void Contract and Liability of Office,: - Any contract entered into contrary to the
requirements of the two (2) immediately preceding sections shall be void, and the officer or officers entering
into the contract shall be liable to the Government or other contracting party for any consequent damage to
the same extent as if the transaction had been wholly between private parties.
40
Executive Order No. 292, entitled "INSTITUTING THE 'ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987,"' signed

t
on July 25, 1987.
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 252411
February 15, 2022

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Money

Claim of [Metro Laundry], represented by its Proprietor, Ms. Elizabeth T.
Tindog, against the City Government of Manila, for payment of laundry
services rendered to the [OMMC] from April to December 2011, amounting
to [P]l,851,814.45, is hereby DENIED. 41 (Emphases in the original.)

COA Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo (Chairperson Aguinaldo)

dissented42 in the outright denial of Metro Laundry's money claim. Without
discounting the admitted illegality of the transaction, Chairperson Aguinaldo
cited case laws which upheld payment of compensation to a contractor or
service provider by way of quantum meruit despite defects in or even nullity
of the contract. In his Dissenting Opinion, 43 he opined:

[T]he Decision makes much reliance on COA Resolution No. [86-58] dated
[November 15, 1986,] which states the policy on the Recovery by
Government Contractors on the Basis of Quantum Meruit. This Resolution,
which curiously limits quantum meruit recovery to a single ground - the
absence of the certificate of availability of funds, has long been rendered
obsolete by numerous decisions of the Supreme Court through the last three
decades. It is archaic, a relic of the past, and totally out of tune with[,] not
just jurisprudence[,J but reality. Relying on the Resolution as a basis for the
denial of the money claim is not simply turning a blind eye to
jurisprudence[,] but being inattentive and unjust.

The justification usually given for the denial of money claims based
on quantum meruit is that contractors continue to violate government
procurement laws. But who actually violates the procurement law? Absent
any proof of collusion, the burden of which falls on the Commission, it
cannot be presumed that the contractor colluded with the government
officials involved. It is the government official who violates the
procurement law, by not holding any public bidding, or proceeding without
appropriation or a written contract. Consequently, the proper patty to
penalize is the government official responsible. The denial of a quantum
meruit money claim, in the absence of proof of collusion, will not have the
effect of lessening procurement law violations for the simple reason that the
wrong person is being penalized. The proper recourse is referral of the
matter to the Office of the Ombudsman for investigation of the government
officials involved.

xxxx

I vote to grant the Petition for Money Claim, subject to a quantum

meruit determination of the actual services rendered and the reasonable
value thereof. 44

Metro Laundry now comes directly to the Court on certiorari, insisting

to be paid on the basis of quantum meruit for the services it had actually
rendered for the City of Manila. 45 For its paii, the COA Proper, through the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), points out Metro Laundry's failure to
41
Rollo, pp. 33-34.
42
Id. at 34.
43
Id. at 35-36.
44
Id. at 36.

r
45
Id. at 24.
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 252411 .
February 15, 2022

file a motion for reconsideration (MR) before the COA Proper before it sought
remedy to the Court, which would have warranted the dismissal of the
petition. 46 Nevertheless, the OSG prays for the modification of the assailed
Decision No. 2020-043 as it also argues for Metro Laundry's entitlement to
compensation and the application of the principle of quantum meruit since the
City of Manila had admittedly benefited from Metro Laundry's services,
subsequent appropriations for the payment were already . done, and
disbursement vouchers were correspondingly issued therefor. 47 Ho:Vever, the
OSG takes exception to the grant of the whole amount of Pl,851,814.45
claimed, and instead argues that only the amount appearing in the
disbursement vouchers - a total of Pl,666,633.00 - should be granted. 48

ISSUE

The only issue is whether the COA Proper gravely abused its discretion
in denying Metro Laundry's money claim due to the irregularities that
attended the extension of its contract of service with OMMC.

RULING

We find merit in the petition.

Non-filing of MR does not justify

dismissal of the petition.

Preliminarily, since the OSG finds no issue on giving due course to the
petition, we find it unnecessary to belabor on the procedural matter raised in
its Comment49 as regards Metro Laundry's failure to file an MR before
resorting to certiorari. It is settled that the rule on the filing of an MR as a
condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari admits of
exceptions, such as when the issue raised is one purely of law, or when the
further delay on the proceedings would already be prejudicial to the interest
of the parties. 50 Here, the ultimate facts are undisputed, and the only issue is
the propriety of applying the principle of quantum meruit. We cannot ignore
the fact that Metro Laundry's ordeal in collecting payment from OMMC's
admitted obligation has been dragged on for more than a decade now,
impelling this Court to finally resolve this controversy to avoid any further
delay.

Payment for services done on account

of the government cannot be avoided
despite irregularity or nullity of the
contract.

46
Id. at 139-140.
47
Id. at 141-145.
48
ld. at 144.
49
Id.atl32-148.
50
See Esta/ilia v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 217448, September 10, 2019, 919 SCRA 1, 10-

r
11.
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 252411
February 15, 2022

There is no dispute that Metro Laundry's extended contract with

OMMC without public bidding violated the procurement law. Section 10,51
Article IV of RA No. 9184 is explicit in mandating that all acquisition of goods
and services by any branch, department, office, agency, or instrumentality of
the government, including state universities and colleges, government-owned
and/or -controlled corporations, government financial institutions, and local
government units be done through competitive bidding, unless otherwise
allowed by the law. 52 Besides, prior appropriation and certification as to the
availability of funds, together with the written contract, are also vital
requirements for the proper execution of government contracts. 53 The
transaction is rendered void absent these documents as expressly stated under
the following provisions of PD No.1445: 54

SEC. 85. Appropriation Before Entering Into Contract. - -

1. No contract involving the expenditure of public funds shall be

entered into unless there is an appropriation therefor, the
unexpended balance of which, free of other obligations, is
sufficient to cover the proposed expenditure.

xxxx

SEC. 86. Certificate Showing Appropriation to Meet Contract. - -

Except in the case of a contract for personal service, for supplies for current
consumption or to be carried in stock not exceeding the estimated
consumption for three months, or banking transactions of government-
owned or controlled banks[,] no contract involving the expenditure of
public funds by any government agency shall be entered into or authorized
unless the proper accounting official of the agency concerned shall_ have
certified to the officer entering into the obligation that funds have been duly
appropriated for the purpose and that the amount necessary to cover the
proposed contract for the current fiscal year is available for expenditure on
account thereof, subject to verification by the auditor concerned. The
certificate signed by the proper accounting official and the auditor who
verified it, shall be attached to and become an integral part of the proposed
contract, and the sum so certified shall not thereafter be available for
expenditure for any other purpose until the obligation of the government
agency concerned under the contract is fully extinguished.

SEC. 87. Void Contract and Liability of Officer. - - Any contract

entered into contrary to the requirements of the two immediately preceding
sections shall be void, and the officer or officers entering into the contract
shall be liable to the government or other contracting party for any
consequent damage to the same extent as if the transaction had been wholly
between private parties.

51
Supra note 33.
52
De Guzman v. Office of the Ombudsman, 821 Phil. 681, 691 (2017).
53
RG Cabrera Corporation, Inc. v. Department of Public rVorks and Highways, G.R. No. 231015,
January 26, 2021.
54
Supra note 37.

!
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 252411 .
February 15, 2022

We, however, highlight that the OfAMC and the City of Manila have
consistently recognized Metro Laundry's entitlement to payment for its actual
services rendered despite non-compliance with the foregoing provisions as
shown by the series of certifications, indorsements, and vouchers issued by
OMMC and concerned city officials. 55 Even the COA Proper, in its assailed
Decision No. 2020-043, 56 agreed that Metro Laundry is entitled to be paid for
its services, although it took exception to Metro Laundry's recourse against
the local government due to the invalidity of the contract, and for that sole
reason, denied Metro Laundry's claim outright. 57

There is no novelty in the issue of satisfying a claim for contract of

services entered into by the government which is considered void due to patent
violations of mandatory rules and regulations. We have consistently sustained
the grant of compensation to contractors, who have entirely or substantially
accomplished their obligation under the contract on the basis of quantum
meruit, regardless of any invalidity or irregularity in its procurement. In as
early as 1988 in the case of Royal Trust Construction v. Commission on
Audit, 58 we have already favored equity, and upheld claims against the
government based on a void contract. We ruled:

The work done by [the claimant] was impliedly authorized and later
expressly acknowledged by the Ministry of Public Works, which has twice
recommended favorable action on the [claimant's] request for payment.
Despite the admitted absence of a specific covering appropriation as
required under COA Resolution 36-58, the [claimant] may nevertheless be
compensated for the services rendered by it, concededly for public benefit,
from the general fund allotted by law to the Betis River Project. Substantial
compliance with the said resolution, in view of the circumstances of this
case, should suffice. The Court also feels that the remedy suggested by
[the COA], to compensation claimed, [i.e., pursuing claim before a
court of law,] would entail additional expense, inconvenience and delay
which in fairness should not be imposed on the [claimant.]

Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice and equity, the

[COA] is DIRECTED to determine on a quantum meruit basis the total
compensation due to the [claimant] for the services rendered by it in the
channel improvement of the Betis River in Parnpanga and to allow the
payment thereof immediately upon completion of the said
determination[.] 59 (Emphasis supplied.)

This case was cited in Dr. Eslao v. The Commission on Audit, 60 wherein
we granted compensation to the contractor for some accomplished work in the
project even if there was failure to go through the mandatory process of public
bidding. The Court reasoned that "to deny payment to the contractor of the

55
Rollo, pp. 4S-60.
56
Id. at 29-36.
57
Id. at 33.
58
G.R. No. 84202, November 22, 1988, as cited in Department of Public Works and Highways v.
Quiwa, 67S Phil. 9 (2011).
59
Melchor v. Commission on Audit, 277 Phil. 801, 815 (1991); and Dr. Eslao v. The Commission
on Audit, 273 Phil. 97, 106-107 (I 991 ).
60
Supra.

I
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 252411
February 15, 2022

two buildings which are almost fully completed and presently occupied by the
university would be to allow the government to unjustly enrich itself at the
expense of another. Justice and equity demand compensation the basis of
quantum meruit."61

In Melchor v. Commission on Audit,62 the Court declared the contract

for extra works in the infrastructure project void, but still ordered the payment
to the contractor as it would be unjust for the government not to shoulder the
expenditure after it has already received and accepted benefits from the
utilization of the project. 63

In EPG Construction Co. v. Hon. Vigilar, 64 we also granted recovery of

payment on the basis of quantum meruit even when a written contract and
corresponding appropriation covering the contract cost were lacking. 65

In the recent case of RG Cabrera Corporation, Inc. v. Department of

Public Works and Highways, 66 the Court categorically described the non-
payment of the lease of equipment used for government rehabilitation and
maintenance projects as "the height of inequity" and a "form of abuse" despite
dearth of necessary procurement documents.

This catena of cases clearly shows that the outright denial of Metro
Laundry's legitimate claim for compensation is unjustified. Insofar as Metro
Laundry is concerned, it has fulfilled the services it was contracted for, and in
doing so, no evidence of bad faith or collusion with the approving OMMC
officials was presented against it. Needless to say, the government has
admittedly benefited from Metro Laundry's services. Given these
circumstances, there is no justification for the COA Proper to impose upon
Metro Laundry the burden of pursuing its claim against the public officials
who engaged its services without compliance with the law. 67 The liability of
these erring officers may properly be imposed in a disallowance case, if bad
faith on their part is proven, and/or in an administrative or criminal case, if
warranted. 68 Thus, we find no further obstacle in ruling for the payment of
Metro Laundry's services based on quantum meruit.

COA should determine the proper

amount to be paid.

61 Id.
62
Supra note 59.
63
Id. at 815.
64
407 Phil. 53 (2001).
65
Id. at 62.
66
Supra note 52.
67
See Department of Public Works and Highways v. Quiwa, 681 Phil. 485, 490-492 (2012).
68

r
See Torreta v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 242925, November IO, 2020.
Resolution 10 G.R. No. 252411 •
February 15, 2022

When payment is based on quantum meruit, the amount of recovery

should be the reasonable value of the thing or services rendered regardless of
any agreement as to value. 69 Determination of such value is a purely factual
matter, which necessitates reception and evaluation of competent evidence.
Metro Laundry claims payment of services rendered from April 1, 2011 to
December 31, 2011 amounting to Pl,851,814.45. As shown in pertinent
issuances, 70 the City of Manila admitted this amount, albeit later on, it claimed
that "per city's record under Check No. 662432 dated February 2, 2012," 71 the
services rendered in October 2011 was already paid, leaving an outstanding
balance of Pl,629,926.25. 72 However, there is a paucity of evidence to
substantiate this allegation. The OSG, on the other hand, points out that only
the amount appearing in the disbursement vouchers 73 -a total of
Pl,666,633.00-should be paid. 74 These contradicting allegations constrain
this Court to remand the case to the COA for the conduct of a post-audit to
determine the amount of the services rendered, to which Metro Laundry shall
be entitled.

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The

Commission on Audit Proper Decision No. 2020-043 dated January I 0, 2020
is SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the Commission on
Audit for the determination of the proper amount to be paid to Metro Laundry
Services. The City of Manila is then ORDERED to pay Metro Laundry
Services such determined amount.

This disposition is without prejudice to any civil, criminal, and

administrative action which may be filed against erring officials of the Ospital
ng Maynila Medical Center for violation of the law, if warranted.

SO ORDERED.

69
Melchor v. Commission on Audit, supra note 58.
70
Rollo, pp. 47-53.
71
Id. at 31.
72
Id. See also Certification dated January 21, 2016, id. at 60.
73
Id. at 56-57.
74
Id. at 144.
Resolution 11 G.R. No. 252411
February 15, 2022

WE CONCUR:

110'(µ✓
ESTELAM. PEltLAS-BERN~
/~ '
MARYi M.V.F. LEONEN
Se "or Associate Justice Associate Justice

. C;x;;;?,~.
L~UC~~ s. CAGUIOA ~LL.HERNANDO
Ju tice Associate Justice

/
HE~INTING
Associate Justice

c::: ··:s:;;:;c:--
SAMUEL H. GAERLAN
Associate Justice

. ROSARIO JHOSE~PEZ
Associate Justice

J
ssociate Justice
Resolution 12 G.R. No. 252411 ·
February 15, 2022

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

~~~
SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer
Office of the Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of the Phili~•pine'.,