text:
[ G.R. No. 129368, August 25, 2003 ]
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MAMERTA B. RODRIGUEZ, SPS. ARMANDO AND ZENAIDA STA ANA, EL OBSERVATORIO DE MANILA INCORPORADA, SPS. WILFREDO AND AURORA POSADAS, REGINALD F. FRANCISCO, BIENVENIDO L. MACEDA, SPS. HECTOR AND MATILDE MENDOZA AND EUGENIO V. ROMILLO, RESPONDENTS.
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court which seeks to annul and set aside the Decision[1] and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 12533-35 dated November 12, 1996 and April 14, 1997, respectively, reversing the Order[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 136, in Special Proceedings Cases Nos. M-108, M-125 and M-126.
THE ANTECEDENTS
Manotoc Securities, Inc. (MSI) was a duly licensed broker and dealer in securities, doing business and operating under the provisions of the Securities Act. The Insular Bank of Asia and America (IBAA) and the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) are private commercial banking corporations duly authorized to operate as trust companies.
IBAA and MSI offered and sold securities to the public. Among the purchasers were private respondents Mamerta B. Rodriguez, the Spouses Armando and Zenaida Sta. Ana, El Observatorio de Manila, Incorporada, Spouses Wilfredo and Aurora Posadas, Reginald F. Francisco, Bienvenido L. Maceda, Spouses Hector and Matilde Mendoza, and Eugenio V. Romillo.[3] As evidence of their purchases, the private respondents executed individual investment agreements with MSI.
Under the said agreements, MSI undertook to invest funds primarily in a portfolio of certain specified securities for fixed periods of time, and to return upon maturity the funds of the investors and their corresponding share in the income of the same. As security for compliance of its undertaking with private respondents, MSI, as the investment agent of the private respondents, delivered qualified securities to the IBAA. Thus, on August 19, 1976, MSI and IBAA executed a custodianship agreement in which the latter was constituted as custodian bank of the investment portfolio/collateral pool of securities of the private respondents with corresponding duties and responsibilities thereunder defined, some of which are as follows:
To sell out the portfolio in whole or in part upon failure by the Company to deliver additional securities as provided for in Section 2.03 hereof, up to an amount that would at least equal to the maximum security value of the Custodian Receipt outstanding and to hold such proceeds from the sale as part of the portfolio under cash accounts until duly claimed (i) by the Company upon presentation of additional qualified securities or cancellation of custodian receipts or (ii) the Investor upon failure of the Company to make such presentation, upon proper presentation of the Investment Agreement together with the Custodian Receipt.
h)
To do and perform such other acts and things as the Company may, by any future instrument in writing delivered to the Custodian, require of the Custodian, provided that such other acts and things are germane to the intent and purpose of this Agreement.[4]
of default by the investment agent, the custodian bank as its attorney-in-fact was authorized to sell so much of the qualified securities held in the portfolio and to apply the proceeds thereof, thus:
Section 5.03. Sale of Securities Portfolio
The Company, by adhesion to this Agreement in the manner herein provided, shall be deemed as having expressly in (sic) irrevocably constituted and appointed the Custodian, as its true and lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power and authority, upon the occurrence of an event of default, to perform the following:
To sell so much of the qualified securities held in the portfolio as may be necessary to satisfy the amounts due and payable whether by term or by declaration or otherwise such sale to be effected at such time or times as the Trustee may determine, and any such sale or sales may be made at a public or private sale in any broker's board or securities exchange, or may be made over-the-counter;
To collect and receive the proceeds of the sale and to issue receipts therefor and/or execute and/or deliver such papers or documents and perform such acts as may be necessary to transfer to the purchaser or purchasers of the qualified securities so sold, all the rights, title and interest on such securities.
Section 5.04. Application of Proceeds of Sale; Accounting
The proceeds from the sale of the qualified securities held in the Portfolio shall be applied as follows:
a) First
To the payment of the costs and expenses of the sale, and the compensation and other claims of the Custodian pursuant to Section 3.09 hereof;
b) Second
To the payment in full of the amounts then due and unpaid for principal and income of the Investor's investment upon the maturity of the Investment Agreement;
c) Third
To the placement of cash accounts as part of the portfolio so as to maintain the aggregate maximum security value required to cover custodian receipts outstanding pursuant to Section 2.03 and 3.01 (g) hereof;
d) Fourth
Any surplus remaining shall be returned to the Company, its successors or assigns or to whomsoever may be lawfully entitled to receive the same.
The Custodian shall submit and render to the Company written statements and reports of sales transactions under this Section, if any, fifteenth (15th) day of each calendar month.[5]
MSI executed in favor of IBAA, conformably to the said custodianship agreement, deeds of assignment, quoted in part as follows:
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and by way of security for the faithful compliance by the Company with the terms and conditions of the Investment Agreement and pursuant to the Agreement, the Company hereby transfers, assigns, sets over and delivers to the Custodian for the benefit and security of Investors, all rights, title and interest whether legal or beneficial in and to the securities more particularly described in the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "1" hereof, and to such other securities as may from time to time be brought under the operation of this assignment from time to time by way of supplementary schedules hereto incorporated and made an integral part hereof by their terms of reference.
The Company hereby reiterates and affirms, as integral parts of this Agreement, all of the warranties set forth in Section 4.01 of the Agreement, to which Agreement reference is hereby made for the other terms and conditions applicable hereto.[6]
On December 12, 1979, MSI as trustor and LBP as trustee executed a contract denominated as "Substitution of Trustee with Assumption of Liabilities" in which LBP substituted and succeeded IBAA as custodian bank of the collateral pool of securities under the custodianship agreement, and thus assumed the previous duties and responsibilities of IBAA as custodian and safekeeper of qualified securities for the benefit of the investors:
Also effective as of December 12, 1979, Land Bank has agreed to be substituted as Custodian in place of IBAA under the aforementioned Custodianship Agreement, and has assumed any and all liabilities of IBAA thereunder.
IBAA, upon the instruction of the TRUSTOR shall, under the mechanics to be agreed upon subsequent hereto, transfer the custody and management of the collateral pool to LAND BANK.
TRUSTOR undertake[s] to hold IBAA free from any and all liability which may arise under the CUSTODIANSHIP AGREEMENT, referred to above, and agree to defend IBAA from any and all suits which may arise by virtue thereof.
LAND BANK undertakes to collect all outstanding IBAA Custodian Receipts issued pursuant to the CUSTODIANSHIP AGREEMENT mentioned above, and to substitute its own Custodianship Receipts thereof within thirty (30) days from the execution of this AGREEMENT.
LAND BANK further agrees to notify all investors of the fact of substitution of IBAA as trustee of the collateral pool, pursuant to Section 3.05 of the CUSTODIANSHIP AGREEMENT dated August 19, 1976.
The provision of Section 3.04-A of the said AGREEMENT relative to the effectivity of removal or resignation of the trustee after the thirtieth banking day from date of notice is hereby waived.
The TRUSTOR shall, upon the execution of this AGREEMENT, liquidate all its outstanding obligations with IBAA, including but not limited to outstanding trust fees and out of pocket expenses.
Upon the execution of this AGREEMENT, IBAA will render its final accounting to the TRUSTOR. Any exception thereto must be communicated in writing to IBAA within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, otherwise the same shall be deemed conclusively correct.[7]
In the same month, Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr. and Teodoro M. Kalaw filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) docketed as SEC Case No. 1826 for the rehabilitation of MSI and the appointment of a Management Committee for the said corporation "to avoid an imminent danger of paralyzation of its business operations brought about by serious financial problems." Teodoro M. Kalaw likewise filed a similar petition with the SEC docketed as SEC Case No. 1835 for the rehabilitation of the Trans-Insular Management, Inc. et al. and for the appointment of a Management Committee.
On December 20, 1979 and January 11, 1980, the SEC issued orders placing MSI under rehabilitation and appointing a Management Committee as interim receiver of the real and personal properties and assets of MSI, its subsidiaries and subdivisions. The SEC issued another order on April 2, 1980 delineating the duties of the Management Committee as interim receiver:
To bring and defend such action in its own name;
To take and keep possession of the properties in controversy;
To receive rents and other income;
To collect debts due to the corporations as receiver and all such funds, property and estate, due to person or corporation of which it is receiver;
To compound for and compromise the same;
To make transfer;
To pay outstanding debts; to divide the money and other property that shall remain among the persons legally entitled to receive the same;
To negotiate with any financial institution whether public or private, domestic or foreign, for such funding and financial arrangement as may be necessary to support the rehabilitation project and program. For this purpose, the Committee or its duly authorized representative may sign such documents and papers as may be necessary;
To make such reports to the Commission as may be decreed necessary from time to time regarding the aforementioned projects; and generally to do such acts respecting the property as the Commission may authorize, including the authority to rehabilitate the said corporation, if possible.[8]
Wilfrido B. Jacinto was appointed as Officer-In-Charge of the Committee.
On February 13, 1980, MSI wrote the LBP, advising the latter that the corporation had been placed under rehabilitation, and that the SEC had appointed a Management Committee to handle its affairs. MSI directed the LBP--
... to suspend any movement, disposition or substitution of any and all properties you now hold either, as collateral, security or custodian for the above-mentioned companies as per the directive of the Securities and Exchange Commission.[9]
On April 18, 1982, the private respondents, through counsel, wrote the LBP, requesting the latter to return their investments with the MSI. The LBP referred the letter of the private respondents to the Management Committee which on May 28, 1982 rejected the demands of the private respondents. On June 1, 1982, the LBP wrote the private respondents that it could not possibly comply with their demands:
As what we have told you in our letter of May 20, 1982 we referred your demands to the SEC-Appointed Management Committee which took over Manotoc Securities, Inc. in view of the SEC order suspending any movement or disposition of any and all properties of the company under our custody as per letter of Enrique J. Unson, Asst. Vice-President of Manotoc Securities, Inc., and noted by W. B. Jacinto, Officer-In-Charge for the SEC-Appointed Management Committee, dated February 13, 1980.
We are, therefore, attaching herewith a copy of the reply-letter from the SEC-Appointed Management Committee dated May 28, 1982 which is self-explanatory.
Likewise, we would like to inform you that we shall be turning over all the properties/securities lodged with us by Manotoc to the SEC-Appointed Management Committee pursuant to the directive of the Bank's top management to terminate and close this account.[10]
On June 24, 1982, the private respondents acknowledged receipt of the June 1, 1982 Letter and informed LBP that as trustee of the investment portfolio, it held legal title over the same. As such, the said portfolio could not be affected by any directives of the Management Committee. The private respondents urged the LBP to--
... desist from "terminating and closing the account" and turning over the Investment Portfolio to the Securities and Exchange Commission as you propose to do, and we hereby reiterate our request that you proceed to sell and dispose of the securities in your custody for the satisfaction of the claims of our clients, without prejudice to taking such action as you may consider necessary for securing a clarificatory order or directive from the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the scope and extent of its alleged directive to you, or a reversal or nullification of said directive, as the case may require. Needless to say, our clients shall hold you responsible for any and all acts or omissions in breach of trust, and for any loss or damage which they or the trust estate may suffer resulting from such acts or omissions.[11]
The LBP rejected the demands of the private respondents.
On June 29, 1982, the private respondents demanded for an accounting of their portfolio.[12] The LBP, in a Letter dated July 20, 1982, informed the private respondents that it could not give due course to the demands because as mere custodian of the securities in the portfolio, it does not have legal title over the same. The demands of the private respondents for the remittance of their investments and the earnings thereof, and for an accounting of their portfolio was, thus, further rejected by the bank.[13]
In the meantime, the Management Committee proposed the appointment of a permanent Receiver to perform the following:
To liquidate the assets immediately for distribution to creditors and investors without prejudice to the possibility of developing small but viable real estate properties;
(b) To continue to pursue collection efforts and/or legal action against all debtors;
To run after the unlimited liability of the principal stockholders, Teodoro V. Kalaw, Jr. and Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr.;
(d) To call on the terms of the broker/dealer bond issued by FGU Insurance Corporation;
To file a case against a former company officer, Raul R. Leveriza, Jr. and other parties involved in the fake title case; and
To take proper action against the company and other parties for violations of the Securities Act regarding the pledging of shares of stock without the approval of the client-owners.[14]
Fearing that their investments were in serious jeopardy due to the abovementioned developments, private respondents Mamerto B. Rodriguez and Spouses Armando and Zenaida Sta. Ana filed a petition with the RTC of Makati under Rule 98 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking the removal of IBAA as trustee and the appointment of a substitute trustee.[15] On June 30, 1983, private respondents El Observatorio de Manila, Incorporada, Spouses Wilfredo and Aurora Posadas and Reginald Francisco[16] on the one hand, and private respondents Bienvenido Maceda, Spouses Hector and Matilde Mendoza and Eugenio Romillo,[17] on the other, also filed similar petitions. The respective petitions of the private respondents were thereafter consolidated and assigned to the RTC of Makati, Branch 136.[18]
ALLEGATIONS OF FACTS IN THE COMPLAINTS
The three petitions for the removal of IBAA as trustee of the investment portfolio created under the custodianship agreements contained substantially similar allegations. The private respondents alleged inter alia that MSI named and appointed IBAA as the trustee of an investment portfolio, which was to consist initially of investment funds solicited and obtained by MSI and IBAA from the issuance and sale to the public of certain securities denominated as investment agreements and custodian receipts.[19] On May 24, 1977 and October 4, 1977, MSI and IBAA amended the agreement under instruments entitled "Amendment to Custodianship Agreement." Under its provisions, the funds of the investors in the investment pool were to be invested primarily in financing the margin accounts of clients of MSI and other stockbrokers in the stock market, the payment of which was to be secured only with certain specified shares of stock at 150% cover and/or real estate properties at 200% cover, based on the latest available market quotations on such shares and the latest independent appraisal of such real estate properties.[20] The investment portfolio was to be held by IBAA in trust for the benefit and protection of the investors therein, as security for the payment at maturity of the principal and income due on their respective investments.[21]
The petitioner in Sp. Proc. Case No. M-125 alleged that on August 3, 1979, IBAA opened Trust Account No. 576 and entered upon the discharge of its duties as trustee when it received investment funds in the amount of P545,000 and accepted the conveyance and delivery of 9,900,000 A shares of Basic Petroleum and Minerals, Inc. and 5,990,000 A shares of Philippine Overseas Drilling and Development Corporation under a deed of assignment.[22]
On August 14, 1978, LBP opened Trust Account No. 03-019 in its Makati Branch for the petitioner in Sp. Proc. Case No. M-126. LBP entered into the discharge of its duties as trustee upon its acceptance of the conveyance and delivery of certain securities.[23] In Sp. Proc. Case No. M-108, the custodianship agreement was entered into on August 23, 1976, upon IBAA's initial receipt of funds in the amount of P1,074,558.66, and the receipt of specified securities.[24]
As part of and in connection with the investments made by the private respondents and other investors in the portfolio, and as security for the payment or return of the said investments, IBAA as trustee issued custodian receipts to the private respondents, certifying that it was holding in custody a portfolio of qualified securities with values equivalent to the amounts of the investments, and acknowledged that its custodian receipts, together with their corresponding investment agreements, constituted a lien on the portfolio of qualified securities in its custody to the total amount of the investment portfolio.[25]
Despite repeated demands made by the private respondents, MSI refused, failed and neglected to pay over or return their investments as and when they matured, as follows:
P20,000.00 to Mamerta Rodriguez under Investment Agreement (IA) No. 4493 as of January 18, 1980;
P13,569.01 to the Sta. Ana spouses, under IA No. 3874 as of January 23, 1980;
P11,593.67 to Zenaida Sta. Ana under IA No. 4186 as of January 21, 1980;
P11,241.07 to Zenaida Sta. Ana under IA No. 4265 as of December 5, 1979;
P13,579.29 to Zenaida Sta. Ana under IA No. 4312 as of January 21, 1980;[26]
P53,416.67 to Observatorio de Manila under IA No. 019 as of December 7, 1979;
P53,416.67 to Aurora S. Posadas under IA No. 015 as of December 4, 1979;
P309,133.11 to Reginald Francisco under IA No. 069 as of February 1, 1980;[27]
P135,005.00 to Bienvenido L. Maceda under IA No. 4231 as of December 10, 1979;
P120,000.00 to Matilde R. Mendoza and/or Bienvenido L. Maceda under IA No. 4232 as of December 10, 1979; and
P40,895.56 to Eugenio V. Romillo under IA No. 4277 as of December 18, 1979.[28]
The private respondents further alleged that MSI failed to maintain the required security value of the investment portfolio at a level equivalent to at least 100% of the amount of the outstanding custodian receipts even earlier than July 30, 1979, and at no time during the period between July 10 to December 10, 1979 did MSI deliver or assign sufficient securities to bring the security value of the portfolio to the level of at least 100% of the amount of the outstanding custodian receipts. Thus, the non-payment by MSI to private respondents and other investors of their returns on the investment agreements at maturity, and the failure of MSI to maintain the security value of the investment portfolio as agreed upon, constituted events of default under the terms and conditions of the custodianship agreement.[29]
The private respondents claimed that instead of being obliged to deliver additional qualified securities to cover the recurring deficiencies in the said investment portfolio, MSI was repeatedly allowed to effect the release or withdrawal and/or substitution of securities which formed part of the same. IBAA likewise failed and neglected to declare the principal and income of all investments then outstanding as due and payable, or to make any serious and prompt demand on MSI to deliver additional securities. IBAA allowed MSI to avail of funds pertaining to the trust, and to misappropriate and misapply the funds by directly borrowing therefrom, and/or by extending loans to its parent and subsidiary companies, to companies and enterprises owned and controlled by its principal officers and directors or their families, and/or controlling stockholders, as well as to other ineligible borrowers. IBAA furthermore allowed MSI to accept inadequate security, or to accept as security unimproved real estate, or real estate of dubious value or with questionable title, notwithstanding clear indications that such security was worthless, grossly inflated in value, ineligible and not readily convertible to cash if needed to pay maturing investment agreements.[30]
To prevent IBAA from declaring all outstanding investment agreements as immediately due and payable, MSI wrote a letter on December 10, 1979 advising IBAA that it was terminating the custodianship agreement effective that same date and that LBP was assuming as the new trustee. On December 12, 1979, MSI and IBAA, together with LBP, executed an instrument entitled "Substitution of Trustee with Assumption of Liabilities" whereby IBAA ceased to act as trustee, and LBP assumed as its substitute. Both the purported termination of the agreement and the purported substitution of IBAA by LBP as trustee of the investment portfolio were sought to be implemented or carried out without the knowledge and consent of the investors, without the benefit of any accounting by IBAA, on its administration and management of the investment portfolio, and without IBAA being discharged of its office and liability as trustee of the investment portfolio by a court of competent jurisdiction.[31] In the interim, the SEC had appointed a Management Committee to take custody of the properties and assets of MSI, to protect the interest of the investors, creditors and stockholders, and to effectively carry out a program of rehabilitation.
The private respondents prayed that after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in their favor (a) ordering the removal of IBAA and LBP as trustee and substitute trustee of the investment portfolio of the private respondents; (b) appointing Prudential Bank as trustee in substitute of IBAA and LBP; (c) declaring as of no force and effect with respect to them the "Substitution of Trustee with Assumption of Liabilities" executed by LBP and MSI; and to --
Order IBAA and LBP to render to the court for approval a full, just and complete accounting of their administration and management of the IP;
Order IBAA and LBP to restore to the Investment Portfolio whatever losses, damages and injuries it may have suffered through their fault or negligence or due to their failure to observe the terms and conditions of the Custodianship Agreement and to perform the duties of trustee thereunder;
Restrain and enjoin LBP from selling, disposing or encumbering any of the securities or assets of the IP presently in its custody;
Order IBAA and LBP to turn over all the trust properties in their custody to the new trustee and to execute any and all instruments necessary to accomplish such purpose, and restrain and enjoin both of them from any further interference in the administration and management of the trust;
Order the forfeiture by the IBAA and/or LBP of any right of compensation as trustee of the IP;
Order IBAA and LBP, jointly and severally, to pay petitioners damages by way of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in such amount as may be considered just and reasonable;
Order the discharge or release of IBAA and LBP from any and all other duties and responsibilities as trustee under the CA only upon full restoration to the IP of all losses, damages and injuries it may have suffered which are properly chargeable to either or both IBAA and LBP, full payment of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, and approval in due course of their accounting of the administration and management of the IP.
Both IBAA and LBP moved to dismiss/suspend the said petitions on the ground that it was the SEC, and not the RTC, which had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cases, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 902-A as amended by P.D. Nos. 1653 and 1799. Thus, conformably to Section 6(c) of P.D. 902-A, as amended, all claims against the distressed corporation should be suspended upon the constitution of the Management Committee. MSI, through its SEC-Appointed Management Committee, also filed a motion to dismiss/suspend proceedings in SP Proc. Case No. 125 on the same ground. In behalf of MSI, Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr. filed a motion to intervene and a motion to suspend the proceedings, also on the same ground. In their Reply, the private respondents averred that IBAA and LBP were trustees of the investment portfolio, and as such, had acquired title over the properties included in the same; hence, the distressed corporation was not the owner of the said investment portfolio. Consequently, the SEC had no jurisdiction over the matter.
The petitions were set for hearing, during which the petitioners therein (private respondents herein) adduced evidence to prove their claim.
THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING[32]
In an Order dated February 12, 1985, the trial court found merit in the motion to suspend the proceedings pursuant to Section 6 of P.D. 902-A as amended. According to the court, the allegations in the petitions indicated that although there was no prayer specifically directed against Manotoc or MSI, the petitions were in reality claims against the latter, or, at the very least, the disposition of the petitions would affect properties belonging or pertaining to a corporation under management or receivership of the SEC.
In ruling for the petitioners, the trial court held that the SEC had primary jurisdiction to the exclusion of the RTC, and that the matter of determining whether the agreement was one of agency, bailment, or trust, should be raised in and determined first by the SEC to the exclusion of the court. Since its jurisdiction was merely secondary, the authority of the court was limited to reviewing the SEC's final deliberations on the petitions. The private respondents should have exhausted all remedies before the SEC. To entertain the suit would open the gates to confusion, resulting in a duplication of proceedings arising out of a conflict of jurisdiction, which could very well be avoided by respecting the jurisdiction of the SEC.
The trial court resolved, thus:
Allowing Manotoc/MSI to intervene in all the cases;
Ordering the suspension and archiving of the case until after the termination of the proceedings before the SEC in SEC Cases Nos. 1826 and 1835.[33]
The private respondents thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on January 16, 1986. The private respondents appealed from the order to the Court of Appeals.
The private respondents alleged on appeal that when MSI named and appointed IBAA as trustee of the investment portfolio, it carried no other implication than that IBAA, as trustee, became the legal owner of the funds in the investment portfolio.[34] Although the SEC placed MSI under management and receivership, its jurisdiction extends only to the properties and assets of MSI. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies should be applied only to those who, having gone to the SEC for relief, failed to avail of and exhaust all possible remedies therein before seeking judicial intervention. The said doctrine was erroneously applied by the trial court, as they were not parties to SEC Cases Nos. 1826 and 1835.[35] While Ricardo Manotoc, Jr. may be a stockholder of MSI, he does not have any legal interest in the trust properties involved in the proceedings; it is the trustee who has legal ownership of the properties held in trust, subject, however, to the equitable rights of the beneficiaries of the same.[36]
The petitioner bank, for its part, maintained that IBAA/LBP is a mere custodian of MSI under the custodianship agreement with specific duties to perform, and as such, is only an agent of MSI; it is not a trustee in the strict and legal sense, and does not hold any legal title over the properties or securities.[37]
Manotoc, in behalf of MSI, contended that as one of the parties who filed the petition for the appointment of a Management Committee and the approval of a rehabilitation scheme for the said corporation and its affiliate companies, he has legal interests in the matter in litigation sufficient to entitle him to intervene in the action.[38]
THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS[39]
The CA reversed and set aside the assailed orders of the RTC. It held that IBAA and LBP were trustees of the investments of the private respondents and not merely custodians thereof; hence, IBAA and LBP had legal title over the property covered by the said investments. The order of the lower court to archive the cases and to relinquish in toto its jurisdiction over the actions initiated by the private respondents was premature. The RTC should have resolved the motions on their merits and determined whether or not the petitioner and IBAA were trustees of the investment portfolio.
The CA further explained that because of the existence of a trusteeship agreement, under Rule 98, Sections 8 and 9 of the Rules of Court, the RTC had jurisdiction over the petitions of the private respondents. The court a quo ought to have given due course to the petitions as originally filed, and thereafter determine which of the reliefs sought were available, in the light of the limitations imposed by the receivership status of the MSI and the SEC's jurisdiction over its affairs and the claims against it, instead of archiving the petition and suspending the proceedings. Moreover, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a pretext to bar the private respondents from seeking judicial relief until the final resolution of SEC Cases Nos. 1826 and 1835, given the fact that the IBAA and LBP were trustees of the portfolio of the private respondents. The CA further stated that the RTC had jurisdiction over petitions for the removal of trustees:
MSI and its assets have been placed under a management committee assigned by the Securities and Exchange Commission. We do not see, however, how this, of necessity, cancels the power of the court, when it finds it meritorious and just, to order IBAA to render an accounting to the beneficiaries. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction, in fact, has a positive import, insofar as judicial authority is concerned. It is this that Davis, an acknowledged American authority on administrative law, propounds:
"The purpose of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is not to divide powers between courts and agencies, but to determine which tribunal should take initial action. An agency which has primary jurisdiction may in effect merely lay the foundation for a judicial determination. x x x The reason for the primary jurisdiction doctrine is not a belief that an agency's expertise makes it superior to a court; the reason is that a court confronted with problems within an agency's area of specialization should have the advantage of whatever contributions the agency can make to the solutions" (Davis, Administrative Law, 381)
Seen as urged on us by Davis, some circumstances of the instant cases become important: the investor-appellees worry that in the tangle of convoluted relations entered into by MSI with IBAA and LBP, they have lost track of their investment and worse still that IBAA, to their disadvantage, has not complied with the terms of the trust. Coupled with the clear mandate of the Rules of Court to entertain petitions for the removal of a trustee, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a pretext to bar the petitioners from seeking judicial relief. They have the right, at least, to be heard by the court. It is for the lower court, after due hearing and after having passed on the evidence, to determine which reliefs sought for are allowed and which are not, in view of the receivership status of MSI. It cannot be right, however, for the lower court to eschew any authority over the cases at all.[40]
The petitioner received a copy of the assailed decision of the CA on November 18, 1996 and consequently filed its motion for reconsideration on December 3, 1996. On April 18, 1997, the petitioner received a copy of the questioned resolution dated April 14, 1997, denying its motion for reconsideration. Instead of filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, the petitioner filed on June 17, 1997 the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS
The petitioner avers that the CA committed a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that the petitioner was a trustee of the portfolio of the private respondents and that the RTC had jurisdiction over the petitions of the latter. It asserts that it has no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. As a mere custodian of MSI under the custodianship agreement with specific duties to perform, it is only an agent and not a trustee in the strict legal sense, and does not hold any legal title over the properties and securities.[41] The CA acted despotically when it ignored the various documents showing the true relationship between it and the private respondents.
The petitioner asserts that since it is not a trustee but a mere custodian, Section 8, Rule 98 of the Rules of Court[42] is clearly inapplicable. Consequently, the trial court does not have jurisdiction over the petitions filed by the private respondents for the removal of LBP as trustee. Instead, the petitioner asserts, it is the SEC who rightly has jurisdiction over the petitions. While cleverly denominated as "petition for the removal of IBAA or LBP as trustee," the petitions are, in reality, a mere sly scheme of private respondents to implement the custodianship agreement between LBP and MSI through the instrumentality of the trial court. Even assuming that the petitions are not claims or actions against MSI, nonetheless, at the very least, their disposition would affect properties belonging or pertaining to a corporation under management or receivership of the SEC, and thus should accordingly be suspended, conformably to Section 6(c) of P.D. 902-A, as amended. Since the petitions before the court a quo are in effect clearly claims/actions against a corporation under management or receivership by the SEC which even private respondents admit to have been placed under management/receivership due to, among others, the alleged acts/schemes of its board of directors/officers/partners amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public, it then follows that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Thus, only the SEC has jurisdiction over the said cases to the exclusion of the courts. [43]
Petitioner LBP also states its willingness to perform its duties and obligations as custodian bank under the custodianship agreement even without instigation. It, however, averred that in deference to the SEC Order of April 2, 1980 which directed it to suspend any movement, disposition or substitution of any and all properties held in behalf of MSI, whether as collateral security or as custodian thereof, it is unable to do so. The petitioner contends that it is duty-bound to comply with the order, considering that it was issued by the SEC in the legitimate and valid exercise of its regulatory and adjudicatory powers pursuant to P.D. 902-A. LBP reiterates that the petitions are part of a sly scheme to implement the custodianship agreement between LBP and MSI through the instrumentality of the trial court.[44]
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENTS
In their Comment, the private respondents moved to dismiss the petition. According to them, appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court was available to the petitioner and that it was an equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient remedy in the ordinary course of law, which consequently should have been availed of.[45] It is not enough for the petitioner to merely allege that appeal is not a speedy or adequate remedy in the instant case. Although the petitioner contends that it had to file the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to prevent it from further litigating the matter, it has not shown that an ordinary appeal from the assailed decision would not have obtained the same effect. As a matter of fact, as the private respondents assert, an appeal would have stayed the decision by preventing it from becoming final and executory, from being entered by the Clerk of Court of the CA in the book of entries of judgments, and from being remanded to the lower court.
Precisely, where the remedy of appeal is available, as it was in this case, the petitioner must interpose its appeal under Rule 45 within the reglementary period of 15 days from notice of the decision, or of the resolution denying its motion for reconsideration. The private respondents vehemently argue that the petitioner cannot allow the period to appeal to expire, and after having lost his right to appeal, seek to regain it by recourse to certiorari under Rule 65.[46]
The petitioner admits in its petition that it received a copy of the questioned decision on November 18, 1996 and filed its motion for reconsideration on December 3, 1996. Then, on April 18, 1997, it received a copy of the questioned resolution denying its motion for reconsideration. According to the private respondents, it is clear from the foregoing that the petitioner had 15 days from receipt of the resolution denying its motion for reconsideration (April 18, 1997), within which to take an appeal to this Court. For failure to do so, the decision and resolution of the CA became final and executory on May 3, 1997. It was, thus, too late for petitioner LBP to take an appeal or to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[47]
In the statement of facts and of the case in the petition for certiorari, petitioner LBP makes reference to the following pleadings and documents:
Investment Agreements of private respondents with MSI (3rd paragraph, p. 2);
Custodianship Agreement dated August 19, 1976 (1st paragraph, p. 3);
Order/s of the Securities and Exchange Commission issued in SEC Cases No. 1826 and No. 1835 placing MSI and all its subsidiaries under Receivership and Management Committee (1st paragraph, p. 4);
Petition filed on June 8, 1983 by private respondents Mamerta Rodriguez and Spouses Armando and Zenaida Sta. Ana with the Regional Trial Court of Makati seeking the removal of IBAA as trustee and the appointment of a substitute trustee (2nd paragraph, p. 4);
Petition filed on June 30, 1983 by private respondents El Observatorio de Manila Incorporada, Spouses Wilfredo and Aurora Posadas and Reginald Francisco seeking the removal of IBAA (as alleged trustee) and LBP (as alleged substitute trustee [sic]) and the appointment of a substitute trustee (Ibid.);
Petition filed on June 30, 1983 by private respondents Bienvenido Maceda, Spouses Hector and Matilde Mendoza and Eugenio Romillo (Ibid.);
Order/s consolidating the above petitions and their assignment to Branch 136 of the Regional Trial Court (Ibid.);
Motion/s filed by petitioner LBP to dismiss/suspend said petitions (Ibid.);
Motion for reconsideration filed by private respondents (1st paragraph, p. 5);
Order dated January 16, 1986 denying private respondents' motion for reconsideration (Ibid.);
(Notice of) Appeal filed by private respondents (2nd paragraph, p. 5);
Appellants' Brief filed by private respondents herein with the Court of Appeals (Ibid.);
Appellee's Brief filed by petitioner LBP (Ibid.);
Custodian receipts (3rd paragraph, p. 10).[48]
According to the private respondents, most, if not all, of the foregoing pleadings and documents are relevant and pertinent to the instant petition for certiorari, and are absolutely necessary for a clear understanding of the facts of the case. The petitioner's failure to attach them to its petition, in violation of the requirements of Section 1, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court can only be fatal to its cause, and constitutes another ground for dismissal of the instant petition.[49]
Another argument relied upon by the private respondents is that one of the conclusions reached by public respondent CA which is sought to be corrected by the instant petition for certiorari is that a trust was created in each of the custodianship agreements. This conclusion, even if erroneous, amounts to nothing more than an error of judgment, correctible by appeal. The private respondents assert that the instant petition for certiorari cannot correct errors of judgment, since it is confined to the correction of errors of jurisdiction only, or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[50]
According to the petitioner, the finding of facts made by the respondent CA as to the transfer, assignment, set over, and delivery to IBAA and LBP of the securities in the investment portfolios for the benefit and security of the investors should be conclusive upon the Court, except only if shown to have been reached with abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, which petitioner has failed to do.
Even the claim of petitioner LBP that the disposition of the petitions for removal of trustees would affect properties belonging or pertaining to a corporation (MSI) under SEC management or receivership lacks factual basis. By virtue of the assignment of the securities in the investment portfolios to the trustee banks, title and interest therein were in fact vested in them, making them the legal owners of the same.
Anent the contention of LBP that it is willing to perform its duties were it not for the directive issued by the SEC, the private respondents assert that the SEC Order dated April 2, 1980 contains no such directive, nor is it even addressed to LBP. It is simply a resolution placing MSI and its subsidiaries under receivership, and appointing the Management Committee of the said entities as interim receiver of their properties. And even if the SEC order had indeed contained an actual directive addressed to LBP to suspend any movement, disposition or substitution of any and all properties of MSI, it knew or ought to have known that an order so issued would be in excess of jurisdiction and would not be binding upon it, because no court or tribunal can take property in the possession of a stranger to the action who claims in good faith to be the owner thereof. Furthermore, under the terms of the appointment, the Management Committee was not given the power or authority to take over the management or control of assets or properties not belonging to MSI. LBP, according to the private respondents, would then be obliged, in the exercise of its duty as trustee, to defend the trust property from all adverse claimants and to take the necessary action to nullify or set such order aside.[51]
THE DECISIVE ISSUE
The threshold issue in the case at bar is whether or not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is the proper recourse of the petitioner for the reversal of the assailed decision and resolution of the CA.
The petition is dismissed.
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court reads:
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
A writ of certiorari has been called a "supervisory or superintending" writ. It was a common law writ of ancient origin. It's earliest use was in the crown or criminal side of the Court of King's bench. Its use on the civil side later came into general use.[52] Certiorari is a remedy narrow in scope and unflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop.[53]
The writ of certiorari issues for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It cannot be legally used for any other purpose. Its function is only to keep the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[54] It may issue only when the following requirements are alleged in the petition and established: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[55] Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting.[56] Without jurisdiction means lack or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority.[57]
The general rule is that a cert writ will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative.[58] Hence, the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available. Such a remedy will not be a cure for failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Nor can it be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies.[59] However, there are cases where the cert writ may still issue even if the aggrieved party has a remedy of appeal in the ordinary course of law. Thus, where the exigencies of the case are such that the ordinary methods of appeal may not prove adequate either in point of promptness or completeness so that a partial or total failure of justice may result, a cert writ may issue.[60]
In SMI Development Corporation v. Republic of the Philippines,[61] we held that certiorari is available when the remedy of appeal is not adequate, or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient. The determination as to what exactly constitutes a plain, speedy and adequate remedy rest on judicial discretion and depends on the particular circumstances of each case. There are many authorities that subscribe to the view that it is the inadequacy, and not the mere absence, of all other legal remedies, and the danger of a failure of justice without it, that must usually determine the propriety of the writ.[62] An adequate remedy is a remedy which is equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient, not merely a remedy which at some time in the future will bring about a revival of the judgment of the lower court complained of in the certiorari proceeding, but a remedy which would promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the inferior court, tribunal, board or officer.[63]
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[64]
The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive.[65] Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari.[66]
The proper recourse of the aggrieved party from a decision of the CA is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. On the other hand, if the error subject of the recourse is one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of was perpetrated by a quasi-judicial officer or agency with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules. As expostulated by the Court in Fortich v. Corona:[67]
Anent the first issue, in order to determine whether the recourse of petitioners is proper or not, it is necessary to draw a line between an error of judgment and an error of jurisdiction. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reviewable only by an appeal. On the other hand, an error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. This error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.[68]
The supervisory jurisdiction of the court to issue a cert writ cannot be exercised in order to review the judgment of the lower court as to its intrinsic correctness, either upon the law or the facts of the case.[69]
The general rule is that questions or findings of facts in the lower court, board or tribunal, and the probative weight and sufficiency of the evidence upon which the said findings were based are not reviewable by certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. However, the sufficiency of the evidence may be inquired into in order to determine whether jurisdictional facts were or were not proved or whether the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction. This exception arises out of the most important office and function of the writ - the keeping of the lower court and tribunal within their jurisdiction. If the decision of the lower court as to the sufficiency of the evidence to establish jurisdictional facts were not reviewable, certiorari would be of no avail as a remedy against an assumption of jurisdiction. For the purpose of enabling the reviewing court to determine whether jurisdictional facts were established, it may delve into and review the evidence on which such facts were based.[70]
THE ERRORS ASCRIBED TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS IN
ITS DECISION ARE ERRORS
OF JUDGMENT AND NOT
OF JURISDICTION.
Inscrutably, the CA had jurisdiction over the appeals of the private respondents from the order of the trial court. The decision of the CA was thus rendered by it in the proper exercise of its jurisdiction. In its decision, the CA enumerated the following findings of facts:
the RTC erred in ordering the petitions archived and the proceedings in said petitions suspended simply because of the pendency of SEC Cases Nos. 1826 and 1835 and of the appointment of Management Committee as interim receiver;
based on the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the petitioner and the IBAA were trustees of the investment portfolios; hence, owners and not mere agents of MSI;
(c) the investment portfolios are not assets of MSI;
(d) the SEC had no jurisdiction over the investment portfolios held in trust by the petitioner and IBAA;
only those actions for claims against the distressed corporation are suspended, but the petition for the dissolution of the trusteeship for IBAA and the petitioner LBP to render an accounting of their stewardship of the investment portfolios, and to pay damages on account of their mishandling and/or defalcation of the same, are not suspended but may proceed until the petitions are finally resolved;
the principle of primary administrative jurisdiction does not apply in the instant case.[71]
These findings are mere errors of judgment and not errors of jurisdiction, correctible by a petition for review on certiorari with this Court under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Hence, the petitioner should have filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 within the period therefor, and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules.
APPEAL UNDER RULE 45 OF
THE RULES OF COURT AS
AMENDED IS A SPEEDY AND
ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE
ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW.
The petitioner avers that an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 would not promptly relieve it from the injurious effects of the patently erroneous decision and resolution of the CA; the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 would afford it a more expeditious and efficient relief. The petitioner also points out that if the petitions of the private respondents were to be remanded to the RTC for appropriate proceedings, the already clogged dockets of the trial court would be needlessly exacerbated considering that it had no jurisdiction over the petitions.
We do not agree with the petitioner. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It bears stressing that if the petitioner had filed its petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 within the period therefor, the assailed decision would have been stayed. In such case, the petitioner could have raised issues involving questions of law, such as whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the petitions of the private respondents, or whether the petitions are in effect actions for claims as defined by this Court in Finasia Investments & Finance Corp. v. Court of Appeals:[72]
The word "claim" is also defined as:
Right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured; or right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, unsecured.
In conflicts of law, a receiver may be appointed in any state which has jurisdiction over the defendant who owes a claim.[73]
THE DECISION OF THE
CA HAS BECOME FINAL
AND EXECUTORY.
The petitioner received a copy of the decision of the CA on November 18, 1996. It had until December 3, 1996 within which to file its motion for reconsideration of the decision. The petitioner did so on the said date and received on April 18, 1997 the resolution of the CA denying its motion for reconsideration. The petitioner filed its petition at bar only on June 17, 1997, well beyond the period therefor. Patently then, the decision of the CA had become, in the interim, final and executory, beyond the purview of this Court to act upon.[74]
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 12533-35 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Hilarion L. Aquino, with Associate Justices Jainal D. Rasul and Hector L. Hofileña concurring.
[2] Penned by Judge Ricardo J. Francisco who later became an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
[3] CA Rollo, p. 301.
[4] Folder of Exhibits, pp. 86-87.
[5] Id. at 90-91.
[6] Record on Appeal, p. 48 (Italics supplied).
[7] Folder of Exhibits, p. 121.
[8] Records, Sp. Proc. No. M-126, pp. 70-71 (Annex "D").
[9] Id. at 80 (Annex "F-1").
[10] Id. at 81 (Annex "G").
[11] Id. at 84 (Annex "H").
[12] Id. at 85-88 (Annex "I").
[13] Id. at 89-91 (Annex "J").
[14] Annex "A."
[15] SP Proc. Case No. M-108.
[18] Records, Sp. Proc. No. M-125, p. 7.
[19] Only in Sp. Proc. Cases Nos. M-108 and M-125. In Sp. Proc. Case No. M-126, the LBP had already been appointed as the trustee of the investment portfolio. IBAA was not made a party to the case.
[20] Records, Sp. Proc. Case No. M-108, p. 3.
[23] Records, pp. 3-4.
[27] Records, SP Proc. Case No. M-125, pp. 5-6.
[28] Records, SP Proc. Case No. M-126, p. 6.
[30] Id. at 9-11.
[34] CA Rollo, pp. 60-61.
[40] Rollo, pp. 31-32 (Emphasis supplied).
[42] Sec. 8. Removal or resignation of trustee. - The proper Regional Trial Court may, upon petition of the parties beneficially interested and after due notice to the trustee and hearing, remove a trustee if such removal appears essential in the interests of the petitioners....
[52] Conners v. City of Knoxville, 189 S.W. 870 (1916).
[53] San Miguel Foods, Inc.-Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant v. Laguesma, 263 SCRA 69 (1996).
[54] Silverio v. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 527 (1986).
[55] Cuison v. Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 159 (1998).
[56] Conners v. City of Knoxville, supra.
[57] Martin, Rules of Court of the Philippines, 2nd ed., Vol. 3, p. 152 (1969).
[58] Sumndad v. Harrigan, G.R. No. 132358, April 12, 2002; Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Court of Appeals, 334 SCRA 305 (2000); Rosete v. Court of Appeals, 331 SCRA 193 (2000); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 81 (2000); Ligon v. Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA 73 (1998).
[59] National Irrigation Administration v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 255 (1999).
[60] State v. Guinotte, 57 S.W. 281 (1900).
[61] 323 SCRA 862 (2000).
[62] People v. State Treasurer, 24 Mich., loc.cit. 477; Inhabitants of Cushing v. Gay, 23 Me. 9; Hopkins v. Fogler, 60 Me. 266; Spofford v. Railroad Co., 66 Med. 26; Edgar v. Greer, 14 Iowa, loc.cit. 212, all cited in State v. Guinotte, supra.
[63] State v. Guinotte, supra; Silvestre v. Torres and Oben, 57 Phil. 885.
[64] De Baron v. Court of Appeals, 368 SCRA 407 (2001).
[65] Supra.
[66] New York Marine Managers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 416 (1995).
[69] Hunt v. Norton, 5 ALR 2nd 668 (1948).
[71] Rollo, pp. 24-33 (CA Decision).
[73] Id. at 450, citing Black's Law Legal Dictionary, p. 224, 5th ed.
[74] Zacate v. Commission on Elections, 353 SCRA 441 (2001); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 81 (2000); National Irrigation Commission v. Court of Appeals, supra.


I will begin to organize these by category but for now you will find a preponderance of info on caregiving with a smattering of some other subject. By jumping off to some of these sites you will find an even greater source of links and information. There is a lot out there!
Dying: A book of comfort : great site with lots of resources and useful links.
Lotsa Helping Hands : powers free online caring communities that provide tools to organize daily life during times of medical crisis or caregiver exhaustion.
National Alliance for Caregiving (NAC, many resources, including online brochures. (In theory there is a Family Care Resource Connection but I couldn't find it.
Caregiving Partnership: Links to a few hundred caregiving sites covering a wide range of caregiving needs and situations.


text:
package com.example;

import java.net.URL;
import java.io.InputStream;
import java.io.IOException;

public class SupWorld {

  private SupWorld() {}

  public static void main(String... args) throws IOException {
    URL url = SupWorld.class.getResource("/com/another/supworld.txt");
    try (InputStream inputStream = url.openStream()) {
      int ch;
      while ((ch = inputStream.read()) != -1) {
        System.out.print((char) ch);
      }
    }
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


This is across the street from my home in Northeast Mineapolis. I stood in my driveway at 9:00 pm and sketched quickly, even though the temperature was 18 degrees and quite windy. No snow, only some ice.
Acrylics and pumice.18 X 24.
This painting has a line of inclusions imbedded in the paint. The inclusions, rising above the canvas, are pieces and chunks of dried paint.
Acrylics, pumice, inclusions. 18 X 24.
I went into an entirely different direction with this painting. Anyone who knows my art, knows I like thick lines and lots of disruptive colors, as well as a general do what I want and color-outside-the-lines feel.
But mid-century modernism is all the rage -- or has been -- maybe I'm jumping on the bandwagon a bit late -- anyway, I wanted to make a painting that would fit into Frank Sinatra's 1955 home in Palm Springs. I experimented and created something with straight lines and strong colors. I used six 16 X 12 gallery canvasses, lots of pumice, and rich colors. All the frames are bolted to each other. As a personal touch, there is a piece of wood from a chicken coop and a building cut-out from a 1950s postcard, as well. 36 X 52.5 inches.
An art collector purchased my one of my recent paintings, Matisse's Algerian Woman at the art opening at Twin Spirits Distillery. Matisse's art has been a huge influence for me.
An art collector in Minneapolis purchased Slow Down off the wall at Twin Spirits Distillery. Slow Down was a painted in response to the traffic speeding through the neighborhoods of northeast Minneapolis.
I wil have an art opening Friday December 14 through the holidays, at Twin Spirits Distillery, from 6 until closing. My art will be there through the holidays. Please drop by if you'd like a good drink and some unique art. Wide price range.
Most people who have had an art history class from college can look at my art and tell I am a big fan of Matisse. He used bright colors in all of his work, and so do I for the most part. Matisse has a number of portraits, some such as his wife ("The Green Line"), his artist-colleague Andre Derain, and a series of paintings depicting "Odalisque" women.
I painted "Matisse's Algerian Woman" on a 20 X 20 gallery canvas, using acrylic paints and pumice.


Stegosaurus is the armor dinosaur with spiky tail and plated back bone, but no one are pretty sure that these weapons could protect Stegosaurus from the predator, because how silly it is. Stegosaurus' famousness is how small of its brain comparing with its body. This is the reason that Stegosaurus is considered as the retardest dinosaur.
Roll mouse over the low-right part of the page, you will see the information.
Roll mouse over the dinosaurs, you will see its movement.


Machine translated chapter 1265 of Human Emperor light novel.
Wang Mi adds. Wang Chong has not spoken, looks to other people. In room quiet, in all person reveals the ponder the look. The thing that " actually, you said my probably a little impression. " The sudden sound resounds in the hall, immediately attracted the attention of all people. "Elderly Zhao!" Wang Chong gains ground, some surprise looks at the opposite, sits together abreast in row Elderly Zhao and Elderly Ye. They are the former subordinates of Duke of Jiu subordinates, here is oldest, can be said as the qualifications is deepest. "Old Ye, you still remembers more than 40 years ago, Sage Emperor first year, just ascended on the base the throne time, once had the Confucian School person to offer the congratulatory gift to Sage Emperor?" Elderly Zhao was saying, while looks to nearby Elderly Ye. "This......" Elderly Ye is startled, has not thought that Elderly Zhao will mention suddenly the dozens years ago matters. They are one big person of age, a lot, where will remember that clearly. " You have forgotten, at that time that person also hit with you, the Sage Emperor coronation ceremony had not finished, he in a hurry walked. The Elderly Zhao reminder said. Hears these words, the Elderly Ye brow selects, in the eye the ray flashes, finally has as if remembered anything. "I, really had a Confucian School person to have an audience at that time Sage Emperor, moreover Sage Emperor still alone received him in Taihedian. At that time the ceremony also therefore, compared with the evening that Ministry of Rites estimated the hemiprism fragrant time." Elderly Ye said. The dozens years ago matters could not record these many, but Sage Emperor coronated the ceremony such important matter to be delayed, when all people warmly were participating in this grand ceremony, but when another person, actually ahead of time left the stage, you will remember this person. "At that time I noted, that Confucian scholar gives on the Sage Emperor gift to have this mark." Elderly Zhao opens the mouth to say. "wēng!" Hears the Elderly Zhao words, the Wang Chong whole body shakes, turned head to look fiercely. He only knows this meek gate after oneself defeat Caliphate suddenly appears, actually does not know more than 40 years ago also had appeared, moreover has the relation with Sage Emperor.
Chapter 1265 Article ever green, Tang Chengyu, Li Fanming is Confucian School places with great difficulty in the three nails of military, by the Wang Chongs status, appealed to them on Imperial Court, 6070 on probabilities were toppled by Wang Chong. What is more important, Wang Chong even can because of them on, counterattack Confucian School. Because article ever green, Tang Chengyu, Li Fanming all three people of materials can definitely look up. Does not need A light sound resounds, Li Jun envy puts down ancient Juan, stands up slowly This game of gambling just started, Tang Chengyu there makes them drag, that side Ministry of War, we will find the way to take care, his these subordinates are closing first, as for the foreign land king, is coped by me, a short time he how them. Northwest there, is far from they provocation in first, but is the Wang Chongs subordinate violates the military order first, even if Wang Chong considers Royal Court, rescues his these subordinates, but cannot truly how Tang Chengyu, Li Fanming they, all, Li Jun envy has considered beforehand very thoroughly, let alone, his goal to not cope with Wang Chongs that several subordinates. Loosen is old, have other matters prepared appropriately Li Jun envy opens the mouth to say suddenly. Young Master felt relieved that all has prepared appropriately, all only wait for young masters order. Nearby loose king tastes. That starts . Another side, in the King Song mansion, Wang Chong, King Song, Zhangchou Jianqiong, Wang Gen and Lu Ting, Elderly Ye, Elderly Zhao and the others, gather completely, even including Wang Chongs little uncle Wang Mi, Mountain Tianzhu from city convened. Wang Chong, King Song and Zhangchou Jianqiong three people sit together abreast in row, other people sit in the below first position, encircles. Here was an entire government and people hugest influence. Wang Clan insufficient secret, but Wang Chong, the mansion of foreign land king is still constructing, at least 23 months are hard to finish. Therefore Wang Chong with the aid of the King Song mansion, called all people. Wang Chong Everybody was in attendance, you recently the acquired information and everybody said one you King Song has swept people in room, suddenly opens the mouth to say. Um Wang Chong has not concealed, returns to Beijing oneself the later all investigations, including said through the matter that the Zhang Shougui event locked Li Jun envy, but has concealed the Sage Emperor matter only. Sage Emperor is the Empire pillar, is establishes a capital city Great Tang, stable will of the people main strength. If the matter revelation of Sage Emperor, likely initiates the confusion and horridness of entire government and people. In room quiet, all people including Wang Chongs Big Uncle Wang Gen, earnestly are listening respectfully completely. Matter all people of Wang Chong on Imperial Court saw, however no one has thought that beside Imperial Court, when all people also immerse in the confusion, Wang Chong been quietly has found out secret instigation. Really is inconceivable Therefore your meaning, inside and outside the government and people had that many matters these days, stems from a youngster writing skill completely Elderly Ye muttered, in the sound was full of the shock. Their these old fogies withdrew from the Empire core, the matter on Imperial Court also only knew a general idea, does not know these many twists and turns. But at this moment, the feeling of Elderly Ye is the feelings of other people. Who can imagine, current dynasty Grand Preceptor, King Qi, Prime Minister Li Lin just the highranking court officials of these extremely officials, unexpectedly simultaneously will obey orders in 27 or 28yearold youngster, this simply is fantasy story. If these words did not say from the Wang Chong mouth, the people no one believe. However Wang Chong will not always be aimless, so long as is he says earnestly, even if he said that Sun is hits the west side to come out, perhaps the people believe. This was also I must to everyone say that 26 or 27yearold youngster, was impossible to have such big ability, can order old Grand Preceptor and King Qi they. Especially King Qi, is always proud, is more impossible to submit to in people easily. If no huge influence support, is impossible to achieve. This is also I hopes that everybody helps, everyone is my Elder Generation, experienced, can perhaps know the origin and background of this meek gate. Wang Chong looks that the people said slowly. The opposite party is not a person, Wang Chong is impossible to rely on a strength of person independent combat, resists a huge influence, this is also he reason that the people convene. Wang Chong, you determined that is this mark King Song had not replied, but takes up that strange mark of front Wang Chong picture to open the mouth to ask. The vision of flash all people gather in the King Song hand, in that black mark. Um Wang Chong nodded. In an instant, in room quiet, all people carefully look in the King Song hand that light drawing paper. The black mark on this paper is strange, for the first time looked probably flutters the bird of soaring, but carefully looks that is different, resembles the picture non picture, resembles the character non character. Old man is also from horizontally gallops, the great storms experienced for 40 years, but this sign, I had not seen before, if not you mentions, I do not even know in Great Tang, unexpectedly also has the influence formidable to this situation Zhangchou Jianqiong looks at that strange mark, has endless emotion, then said More so, explained that more deep of this influence hideaway, the scheme is bigger. Perhaps this aspect, I cannot help. Wang Chongs little uncle Wang Mi said. In all people his qualifications are shallowest, the age is also lightest, this aspect he knows are really not many. Such big influence, in any event, I believe that certainly will leave behind the clues. Wang Mi adds. Wang Chong has not spoken, looks to other people. In room quiet, in all person reveals the ponder the look. The thing that actually, you said my probably a little impression. The sudden sound resounds in the hall, immediately attracted the attention of all people. Elderly Zhao Wang Chong gains ground, some surprise looks at the opposite, sits together abreast in row Elderly Zhao and Elderly Ye. They are the former subordinates of Duke of Jiu subordinates, here is oldest, can be said as the qualifications is deepest. Old Ye, you still remembers more than 40 years ago, Sage Emperor first year, just ascended on the base the throne time, once had the Confucian School person to offer the congratulatory gift to Sage Emperor Elderly Zhao was saying, while looks to nearby Elderly Ye. This. Elderly Ye is startled, has not thought that Elderly Zhao will mention suddenly the dozens years ago matters. They are one big person of age, a lot, where will remember that clearly. You have forgotten, at that time that person also hit with you, the Sage Emperor coronation ceremony had not finished, he in a hurry walked. The Elderly Zhao reminder said. Hears these words, the Elderly Ye brow selects, in the eye the ray flashes, finally has as if remembered anything. I, really had a Confucian School person to have an audience at that time Sage Emperor, moreover Sage Emperor still alone received him in Taihedian. At that time the ceremony also therefore, compared with the evening that Ministry of Rites estimated the hemiprism fragrant time. Elderly Ye said. The dozens years ago matters could not record these many, but Sage Emperor coronated the ceremony such important matter to be delayed, when all people warmly were participating in this grand ceremony, but when another person, actually ahead of time left the stage, you will remember this person. At that time I noted, that Confucian scholar gives on the Sage Emperor gift to have this mark. Elderly Zhao opens the mouth to say. wēng Hears the Elderly Zhao words, the Wang Chong whole body shakes, turned head to look fiercely. He only knows this meek gate after oneself defeat Caliphate suddenly appears, actually does not know more than 40 years ago also had appeared, moreover has the relation with Sage Emperor. Elderly Ye, do you determine Really and this exactly the same King Song opens the mouth to say suddenly. The Elderly Zhao words make Wang Chong accidental incessantly, similarly also lets other person of surprise. Will not have the mistake, can make Sage Emperor postpone the coronation ceremony is not too many. Elderly Zhao serious say way. I also only see one time, later again does not have the information of these people. If not Wang Chong mentions, perhaps I have also forgotten this matter. The clue hence broke, in the room is once more silent, but can obtain the news from Elderly Zhao there, is the unexpected benefit. Actually, the center of this black mark, I felt but actually likely is a character At this time, official scholar Lu Ting that had not opened the mouth speaks. These words beyond expectation, Wang Chong is in the heart shakes, this sign is he earliest discovered that he had not discovered that this sign the middle is a character, suddenly, other Wang Chong people, once more looked. Eliminates most surrounding these traces and designs, the center that carefully observes this mark, the people had not thought anything, but listened to of a saying Lu Ting, the people felt truly somewhat the appearance of glyph immediately. But said is the writing, actually felt that is bad. However Lu Ting read the scripture official scholar full, browsed broadly, since he said that had its reason surely, was not aimless. This shape some likely are the bird seals, is different from todays writing, that is an extremely ancient writing, is one of the early writing. The people who now knows continually are few, say nothing of understood. I also accidentally saw the only scale claw of bird seal in an old book. Lu Ting was saying, suddenly sets out, has grasped the writing brush on pen rack, before arriving at the desk of room directly, wielding a brush shop black ink, but few several stopped, extends to refer to picking up the xuan paper on table. Clarity that flash, the people look, on that snow white xuan paper, a strange design picture non picture, resembles the character non character, although looks that is entirely different from the meek gate black color mark of Wang Chong picture, but at least has 78 similarity. These characters are I from that old book saw that but I also only know its shape not to know its meaning. The say way of Lu Ting. Knows that this is the words of bird seal, this said that if looks up the meaning of this glyph, can perhaps know this meek gate details and origin. At this time, nearby Elderly Ye spoke finally The Rwandan official scholar, you experiences vastly, definitely knows that who knows this writing.


You Are Here, an installation of 1,000 helium-filled balloons, is currently up in Sheffield (UK).
the city, unveiling the activity of the pubic realm.
public art in the public realm along with the Office for Subversive Architecture and Leo Fitzmaurice among others.


Home Android News Droid Bionic soak tests under way, Android ICS update imminent?
Droid Bionic soak tests under way, Android ICS update imminent?
Did you think Motorola forgot about all of you Droid Bionic owners out there? Well, I bet you did, but no matter because only a few devices got the new Android 4.0.x ICS OS upgrade so far and you should expect to hear more news about an upcoming upgrade in the coming weeks.
The upgrade to Ice Cream Sandwich OS for the Droid Bionic could land sooner than expected, that if the soak tests receive a thumbs up and all tests end successfully. The "Go Ahead" for the new update might come as early as February 20 or by the end of the month.
There isn't any official details about Droid Bionic ICS upgrade at this time but make no mistake about it we will keep you updated once we hear more.


text:
The wife of the Interpol former boss gets political asylum in France
May 14, 2019 Written by AbdeslamLeave a Comment on The wife of the Interpol former boss gets political asylum in France
Refugee status was granted to Grace Meng and her children, eight months after the disappearance of her husband, detained in China. The asylum was granted on May 2nd. The wife of former Interpol President Meng Hongwei, who is detained in China today, has been granted refugee status in France.
Nearly eight months after the death of her husband, then head of the international police organization based in Lyon, political asylum was granted to Grace Meng and her two children, said Monday, May 13, his lawyer Emmanuel Marsigny.
Meng Hongwei, 65, who was also deputy minister of public security in his country, is suspected by Beijing of accepting bribes. He was already expelled in March from the CCP and any official function, following a disciplinary investigation within the ruling party. As a result of this investigation, prosecutors "decided to arrest Meng Hongwei," the Supreme People's Procuratorate said in April.
An attempted kidnapping early 2019
Grace Meng, who feared for her safety, has been subject to police protection with her children since an attempted abduction for which she filed a complaint earlier this year. It has recently found that the Chinese authorities have presented "no evidence whatsoever in support of their allegations". The wife of the former leader had also asked President Emmanuel Macron to discuss the situation of her husband with Chinese President Xi Jinping, during his state visit to France last March.
Meng Hongwei is the umpteenth Communist leader pursued in the anti-corruption campaign launched in 2013 by Xi Jinping shortly after taking office. It has already sanctioned more than 1.5 million CCP cadres, according to official figures.
Tagged Emmanuel Marsigny former Interpol President Meng Hongwei Grace Meng Interpol former boss wife of the Interpol former boss
Syrian rebels announce counter-attack in North West
France and Italy joint appeal for an immediate truce in Libya
Donald Trump announces the Jeff Sessions resignation, Justice Minister
November 7, 2018 written by Abdeslam
New Benyamin Netanyahu major political crisis in Israel
Sheikh Hasina has been trying to snatching Bangladesh again like as 5 January of 2014.
November 13, 2018 November 13, 2018 written by Abdeslam

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


My Private Student Loan Application Was Denied. Why? What's Next?
My Private Student Loan Application Was Denied, Why? Oh, And Now What?
If you were recently denied on a private student loan application, don't be discouraged! You still have options. Rejection is hard for anyone – and it happens to everyone. First we'll discuss the common reasons for a private student loan app being denied and then we'll get into what steps you should take moving forward in order to get approved next time.
Possible Reasons For Application Denial.
A credit score is not a simple finite number. There are different models for a "credit score", which depend on each credit bureau. When you request a credit report from a particular credit bureau, it may not be the same as what the lender received from a different credit bureau. The three credit bureaus in United States do not always provide the same credit score for each individual. You should check your reports from at Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion every year, which you can do for free at AnnualCreditReport.com.
Read tips about how to grow your credit score here.
Even as a student, you have to make a certain income to prove you can afford necessary loan payments. Usually, lenders don't want you to accrue debt unless they know you can afford it. There is an option for unemployed or low-income students to re-apply for a loan with a cosigner. Applying with a creditworthy cosigner shows the lender that there is a financially dependable party who has agreed to be held responsible for the loan back if you are unable to afford it yourself.
Lenders examine your debt-to-income ratio to compare your outstanding debts versus your income. Having a higher amount of debt, indicates to the lender you might have difficulty with monthly payments. Try this debt-to-income ratio calculator here.
Did you know that lenders look at your credit report and rent payments when determining your debit-to-income ratio? They do not look at cell phone bills or utilities.
My Application Was Denied, What's Next?
If you're a young student you may need a cosigner —This is common for our loan applications. There is only so much a college student can possibly do to build credit while in school. Find a creditworthy cosigner to help you out. When it comes to finding a cosigner, it's a matter of asking the right person. Asking relatives like parents, grandparents, or other close family members is a good place to start.
Most lenders will tell you the reason as to why you were denied. Give them a call and ask for more details if necessary. This will also give you an opportunity to ask about and learn what you'll need to get approved.
Take time to evaluate your situation. Make a list of colleges that align with your financial situation and ability. It is very common for students to attend a community college for two to three years in order to pay lower tuition for general level courses and then transfer to a university to continue progress towards a bachelor's and beyond.
Keep striving to complete your education and to obtain a brighter future for yourself. While you're at it, be smart and stay within the boundaries of what you can afford. Your future self will appreciate your hard work, self-discipline, and financial wisdom!
Don't forget to review all the different financial aid options out there as well.
Out of options for private student loans?
Complete your FAFSA and be sure to look for different financial aid options. Don't hesitate to contact your school's financial aid office.
Don't let go of your passion and desire for a higher education.
It's okay if applying for a loan to pay for school doesn't work out for you. All that means is that you aren't putting yourself in a position where you are taking on debt that you may not be able to afford. Keep pushing to complete (and pay for) your education at a pace that you can afford while making sure you have what you need to provide for yourself (and your family). Working and going to school is normal. It's 2017 and being a working college student is commonplace.


text:
Q: Regex to see if ip starts with 156.21.x.x I'm writing a regex for google analytics and I need to block any IP from 156.21.x.x I don't care about the last 2 octets just the first two. I would like to keep the regex to as few characters as possible as google only allows 255 chars and my regex is already pretty large.

A: not sure what flavor of regex or what lang your using, but this will work on most regex engines:
156\.21\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}

Of course, this will match invalid ip's like 156.21.777.888, but if the list your parsing doesnt contain invalid ip addresses, then you should be ok.  Or:
156\.21(\.\d{1,3}){2}

A: If you are running short on space, this would work, though you would match non-IP addresses as well.  If you can assume Google will give you valid IP addresses, this is your shortest option:
^156\.21\.

Matches things like: 156.21.1.1 156.21.1000.1000 156.21.ABC
But does not match http://156.21.1.1 ehlo 156.21.1000.1000

A: The following regex would match (almost) valid IPv4 addresses that starts with 156.21:
(156\.21(?:\.[\d]{1,3}){2})

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Chasing the Light Writing Directing & Surviving Platoon Midnight Express Scarface Salvador & the Movie Game
by Oliver Stone
An intimate memoir by the controversial and outspoken, Oscar-winning director and screenwriter about his complicated New York childhood, volunteering for combat, and his struggles and triumphs making such films as Platoon, Midnight Express, and Scarface.
Before the international success of Platoon in 1986, Oliver Stone had been wounded as an infantryman in Vietnam, and spent years writing unproduced scripts while driving taxis in New York, finally venturing westward to Los Angeles and a new life. Stone, now 73, recounts those formative years with in-the-moment details of the high and low moments: We see meetings with Al Pacino over Stone's scripts for Scarface, Platoon, and Born on the Fourth of July; the harrowing demon of cocaine addiction following the failure of his first feature, The Hand (starring Michael Caine); his risky on-the-ground research of Miami drug cartels for Scarface; his stormy relationship with The Deer Hunter director Michael Cimino; the breathless hustles to finance the acclaimed and divisive Salvador; and tensions behind the scenes of his first Academy Award-winning film, Midnight Express.
Chasing the Light is a true insider's look at Hollywood's years of upheaval in the 1970s and '80s.
"[A] sober and cleareyed portrait...notably languid and elegant...the real payoff here, particularly for movie buffs, is Stone's account of his early struggles as a filmmaker....neatly sets the stage for the possibility of that rarest of Stone productions: a sequel." New York Times Book Review
"Chasing the Light is a deep book, illuminated and relentless, prose at its best...What Oliver Stone has written will last, because I have never seen anything like his insights into the way the film industry works.." Werner Herzog
"Oliver Stone's narrative, his life story about the heartbreaks, the near misses, and finally the triumphs is a Hollywood movie in itself. I thank Oliver for writing Chasing the Light, especially for my NYU grad film students — or anybody else with artistic dreams of working in this thing called the movie business. Oliver, in honest and sometimes brutal fashion, lays it out — what it took for him to get to where he hoped to be — a successful writer/director working in Hollywood; the road it took is hard AF. Bravo.Bravo.Bravo." Spike Lee
"Oliver Stone is a giant provocateur in the Hollywood movie system. His autobiography is a fascinating exposure of Stone's inner life and his powerful, all devouring energy and genius that drove him to become one of the world's greatest filmmakers. Stone rattles cages. He pricks the bubbles of the namby-pambies. He provokes outrage. He stirs up controversy. He has no respect for safe places. Oliver Stone is larger than life. Chasing the Light says it all." Sir Anthony Hopkins
Oliver Stone is the multiple Oscar-winning writer and director of Platoon, JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, Natural Born Killer, Midnight Express, and many other films.
This title in other editions
New, Trade Paperback, $17.99


In this 128 page book author, Jane Simmonds, who has been involved in breeding and showing Labradors for over 25 years, traces the history of the breed, and offers expert advice on choosing a puppy, care and training.
Haja Van Wessem has written a superb title giving information about breed history, characteristics and standard, as well as puppy selection, feeding, training, preventative health care and behaviour of the breed.
The Cocker Spaniel, the most popular member of the Spaniel family, is one of the happiest and most adaptable of family dogs, and this superbly illustrated guide is an indispensable handbook for the caring owner.
Learn all about, choosing a puppy, basic obedience training, grooming, feeding and exercise; breeding a litter and much more - full colour illustrations throughout.
In this highly comprehensive Book of the Breed, the author gives a brief account of the Cocker Spaniel's history, highlighting the leading kennels and Champion dogs that have influenced the breed.
The Breed Standard is analysed, illustrated with top-quality line-drawings, and there is a detailed guide to coat care for both the pet and the show Cocker.


Depression is a common illness that many people suffer from. It is very common to have depression plague you throughout your life, or to have years where you are fine and then years where you struggle. The important thing is learning the proper coping skills so that when the hard times do come, you know how to handle them so that you can still live a happy and fulfilling life. Here are some important things to remember when dealing with depression.
The first thing that you must do is turn your illness over to a higher spiritual guide. Recognize that you cannot heal yourself and that believing that you can do so will only make your more frustrated with yourself. You are not weak for feeling depressed. Instead, you must recognize that this is not something that you can do on your own and you need the help of the Lord.
Prayer and supplication will be a major factor in how well you are able to cope with the depression. When you feel like you can't go on, turn it over to the Lord and let him help you. It is okay that you can't do everything on your own, accept the Lord's love and his help.
When you feel depressed the last thing you want to do is exercise and move, but that is exactly what you need to do. Your body produces endorphins when you exercise. These hormones give you the feeling of being happy, take away pain and can give you a sense of well being. When you are depressed, you may just want to sleep or do very little movement; however, this is the worst thing you can do. It will become a vicious cycle that will make it harder and harder to get back on your feet. So try to get out each day and get your body moving.
You should listen to your body and take care of yourself at all times. If you can tell that you are at your breaking point, stop and work through some mental exercises, or have some alone time. Preventing an emotional breakdown will be so much easier than recovering from one. Don't push yourself too hard; if you do you could experience a serious break down.
By doing these things you can better manage your depression.


At Auto Edge you get an experienced team of mechanics repairing and servicing your car using the latest equipment and training. You'll come away knowing you got the service & repairs you needed and will be confident your car won't let you down. It's called Auto Edge Confidence.
Auto Edge has been providing reliable auto repairs and service since 1998. Since then, we've helped over 7,297 car owners just like you.
These guys are great, got some minor electrical issues fixed (they even alerted me to a few more) i was pretty bummed but they knew the issues and the fix's easy! even offered a free vehicle pre-purchase check over if i need to buy another car in the future! Will definitely recommend to my friends and customers.
I would recommend Auto-edge to anyone. I have taken my car, my daughters car there and they are very good. They take the time to speak to you and have a look at your car before they do work on it. Always satisfied with the work done on our cars. We have being going there for a long time and will continue to do so.
Your Car Servicing Specialists in Midvale?


text:
We are so delighted to support Louisa Hill in her campaign to raise awareness of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a life-limiting condition affecting her son Archie (Aged 9) which causes his muscles to weaken and waste over time, leading to increasingly severe disability.
Local lady Louisa from Chalfont St Peter is the sister of our recommended electrical contractor and good friend Danny Young, who, alongside his sister and friend Trisha Duffy, walked more than 100k from London to Brighton on Saturday 24th May 2014.
Louisa, Danny & Trisha set out on foot from Richmond Park at 9am and walked through the day & night to reach Brighton racecourse at noon 27 hours later, having covered 62 miles, raising more than £5,000 for the Duchenne Research Breakthrough Fund, set up by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign to develop treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The charity funds groundbreaking research into muscular dystrophy and related conditions and supports the 70,000 families in the UK affected by them.
Louisa said:
"It was tough. We walked continually for 27 hours through torrential rain, wind and mud, in dark and damp conditions. Travelling through woods and across uneven terrain by torchlight was very challenging and tiring. We suffered from blisters, aches and exhaustion – you would not want to see me trying to get over stiles after the 50k mark! I've run marathons before, but at 80K I almost felt like giving up."
"Still, thinking of Archie drove me on. It was worth every step knowing it was raising vital funds to develop treatments that could help my son and other children like him."
"We are delighted to have raised £5,000, people have been so generous. My husband Gary and I are now planning a golf day that will take place this September. We really need people's support, and if there are any local businesses out there who can help us with auction or raffle prizes, please do get in touch."
More than 70,000 children and adults in the UK have muscular dystrophy or a related neuromuscular condition. A further 350,000 people are affected indirectly as family, friends or carers.
Muscular dystrophy and related neuromuscular conditions cause muscles to weaken and waste over time, leading to increasing disability. The conditions may affect not only the muscles in the limbs, but also those of the heart and lungs, sometimes significantly shortening life-expectancy.
Muscular Dystrophy Campaign
The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign is the leading UK charity fighting muscle-wasting conditions, dedicated to beating muscular dystrophy and other related neuromuscular conditions by finding treatments and cures and to improving the lives of everyone affected by them.
Their work has five main focuses:
Funding world-class research to find effective treatments and cures
Providing practical information, advice and emotional support for individuals with muscular dystrophy and other related neuromuscular conditions, their carers and families
Campaigning to bring about change and raise awareness of muscular dystrophy and other related neuromuscular conditions
Awarding grants towards the cost of specialist equipment, such as powered wheelchairs
Providing specialist education and development for health professionals.
Those wishing to support Louisa, Danny and Trisha can do so by visiting:
www.justgiving.com/owner-email/pleasesponsor/Louisa-Hill
For more information about the work of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and how you can help, please contact Paul Tomlinson, Volunteer Fundraising Manager on 020 8688 9373, or email p.tomlinson@muscular-dystrophy.org or visit www.muscular-dystrophy.org
Danny Young & Louisa Hill


Give the gift of green any time of year! The GreenUP Store sells $10, $25, and $50 gift certificates that are redeemable at the GreenUP Store and at the GreenUP Ecology Park Garden Market. So, if you're not sure which gift to pick out for that special someone, allow them to pick up anything from a new S'well bottle to an apple tree!
Natural, local, medicinal elixirs and loose leaf tea from Necessities, Organic, locally roasted coffee from Kyoto Coffee, local honey from Otonabee Apiary, maple syrup.
Beautiful and unique, handcrafted, and locally produced jewelry. Artisans include Petrichor, Chayle, Bike Bits, and Saha Designs.
We carry many books about wildlife, trees, agriculture, and gardening! We also have a great selection of cards and journals made from eco-friendly materials and cards made by local artists.