MA. LUISA HADJULA vs. ATTY. ROCELES F.

MADIANDA

common knowledge in the BFP. IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution

adopting the recommendation of IBP CBD to reprimand Atty. Madianda.

Ma. Luisa Hadjula filed with the IBP CBD an affidavit-complaint

against Atty. Roceles F. Madianda with violation of Article 209 2 of the Revised
Penal Code and Canon Nos. 15.02 and 21.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for disclosing personal secrets and confidential information Hadjula
revealed in the course of seeking Atty. Madianda's legal advice..
Hadjula alleged that she and Atty. Madianda used to be friends as they both worked
at the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP). Hadjula claimed that, sometime in 1998, she
approached Atty. Madianda for some legal advice. Hadjula disclosed personal secrets
and produced copies of a marriage contract, a birth certificate and a baptismal
certificate, only to be informed later by the Atty. Madianda that the latter would refer
the matter to a lawyer friend. Hadjula claimed that such act was malicious. Atty.
Madianda then filed a counter complaint with the Ombudsman against Hadjula
charging her with violation of Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 3019, falsification
of public documents and immorality, the last two charges being based on the
disclosures complainant earlier made to respondent. A disciplinary case was also
instituted against Hadjula before the Professional Regulation Commission.
Complainant seeks the suspension and/or disbarment of respondent for the latter's act
of disclosing personal secrets and confidential information she revealed in the course
of seeking respondent's legal advice.
In the Counter-affidavit filed by Atty. Madianda, she denied giving legal advice to
Hadjula and dismissed any suggestion about the existence of a lawyer-client
relationship between them. Atty. Madianda also stated the observation that the
supposed confidential data and sensitive documents adverted to are in fact matters of

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Madianda may be reprimanded for violation of CPR.
HELD: Yes. As it were, complainant went to respondent, a lawyer who incidentally
was also then a friend, to bare what she considered personal secrets and sensitive
documents for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and assistance. The moment
complainant approached the then receptive respondent to seek legal advice, a
veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such relationship
imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the
profession.SI
Dean Wigmore lists the essential factors to establish the existence of the
attorney-client privilege communication, viz:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal
adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that
purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance
permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal
advisor, (8) except the protection be waived.

FACTS:

With the view we take of this case, respondent indeed breached his duty of
preserving the confidence of a client. As found by the IBP Investigating
Commissioner, the documents shown and the information revealed in confidence to
the respondent in the course of the legal consultation in question, were used as bases
in the criminal and administrative complaints lodged against the complainant.
The purpose of the rule of confidentiality is actually to protect the client from
possible breach of confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer.

BACAY, Princess McLaine

PEOPLE vs. SANDIGAN BAYAN

GR Nos. 115439-41
April 16, 1997
FACTS:
Respondent Sansaet was a practicing attorney who served as counsel for
Paredes in several instances pertinent to the criminal charges involved in the present
recourse. Respondent Paredes was successively the Provincial Attorney of Agusan
del Sur, then Governor of the same province, and is at present a
Congressman.Sansaet first served as counsel of Paredes in an actionfor the
cancellation of Paredes patent and certificate of title since the land had been
designated and reserved as a school site in the said survey. In such case, the trial
court nullified said patent and title after finding that respondent Paredes had
obtained the same through fraudulent misrepresentations in his application. Atty.
Sansaet also represented Paredes in a case for perjury initiated by the Sangguniang
Bayan. In such case, he Provincial Fiscal was, however, directed by the Deputy
Minister of Justice to move for the dismissal of the case on the ground of
prescription, hence the proceedings were terminated. Atty. Sansaet represented
Paredes for the 3rd time in a case before Tanodbayan,who issued a resolution
recommending the criminal prosecution of Paredes for using his former position as
Provincial Attorney to influence and induce the Bureau of Lands officials to
favorably act on his application for free patent. Teofilo Gelacio, a taxpayer who had
initiated the perjury and graft charges against respondent Paredes, sent a letter to the
Ombudsman seeking the investigation of the respondents herein for falsification of
public documents. He claimed that respondent Honrada, in conspiracy with his
herein co-respondents, simulated and certified as true copies certain documents
purporting to be a notice of arraignment and transcripts of stenographic notes
supposedly taken during the arraignment of Paredes on the perjury charge. These
falsified documents were annexed to respondent Paredes motion for reconsideration
of the Tanodbayan resolution for the filing of a graft charge against him, in order to
support his contention that the same would constitute double jeopardy.Sansaet
subsequently discarded and repudiated the submissions he had made in his counteraffidavit. In a so-called Affidavit of Explanations and Rectifications, respondent
Sansaet revealed that Paredes contrived to have the graft case under preliminary
investigation dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy by making it that the
perjury case had been dismissed by the trial court after he had been arraigned
therein. For that purpose, the documents which were later filed by respondent
Sansaet in the preliminary investigation were prepared and falsified by his corespondents in this case in the house of respondent Paredes. To evade responsibility
for his own participation in the scheme, he claimed that he did so upon the
instigation and inducement of respondent Paredes. Ombudsman filed separate
informations for falsification of public documents against each of the herein

respondents. Sandiganbayan held that client and lawyer relationship existed between
Atty. Sansaet and Ceferino Paredes, Jr., before, during and after the period alleged in
the information. Therefore, the testimony of Atty. Sansaet on the facts surrounding
the offense charged in the information is privileged. The case was elevated to this
Court by the prosecution in an original action for the issuance of the extraordinary
writ of certiorari against respondent Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE: WON the projected testimony of respondent Sansaet is barred by the
attorney-client privilege.
HELD:
No. For the application of the attorney-client privilege, however, the
period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication was made by
the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or with
respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future. In other words, if the client
seeks his lawyers advice with respect to a crime that the former has theretofore
committed, he is given the protection of a virtual confessional seal which the
attorney-client privilege declares cannot be broken by the attorney without the
clients consent. The same privileged confidentiality, however, does not attach with
regard to a crime which a client intends to commit thereafter or in the future and for
purposes of which he seeks the lawyers advice.Statements and communications
regarding the commission of a crime already committed, made by a party who
committed it, to an attorney, consulted as such, are privileged communications.
Contrarily, the unbroken stream of judicial dicta is to the effect that communications
between attorney and client having to do with the clients contemplated criminal
acts, or in aid or furtherance thereof, are not covered by the cloak of privileges
ordinarily existing in reference to communications between attorney and client.In the
present cases, the testimony sought to be elicited from Sansaet as state witness are
the communications made to him by physical acts and/or accompanying words of
Paredes at the time he and Honrada, either with the active or passive participation of
Sansaet, were about to falsify, or in the process of falsifying, the documents which
were later filed in the Tanodbayan by Sansaet and culminated in the criminal charges
now pending in respondent Sandiganbayan. Clearly, therefore, the confidential
communications thus made by Paredes to Sansaet were for purposes of and in
reference to the crime of falsification which had not yet been committed in the past
by Paredes but which he, in confederacy with his present co-respondents, later
committed. Having been made for purposes of a future offense, those
communications are outside the pale of the attorney-client privilege. Furthermore,
the existence of an unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from attaching. In fact, it
has also been pointed out to the Court that the prosecution of the honorable relation
of attorney and client will not be permitted under the guise of privilege, and every

ANCHORIZ, Andrei Dominic

communication made to an attorney by a client for a criminal purpose is a

conspiracy or attempt at a conspiracy which is not only lawful to divulge, but which

the attorney under certain circumstances may be bound to disclose at once in the
interest of justice.

ANCHORIZ, Andrei Dominic

NB: Ombudsmans evaluative legal position: It is difficult to believe that a lawyer of

his stature, in the absence of deliberate intent to conspire, would be unwittingly
induced by another to commit a crime. As counsel for the accused in those criminal
cases, Atty. Sansaet had control over the case theory and the evidence which the

defense was going to present. Moreover, the testimony or confession of Atty. Sansaet
falls under the mantle of privileged communication between the lawyer and his
client which may be objected to, if presented in the trial.

UY, Diane Margret

ANTERO J. POBRE vs. Sen. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO

FACTS
In his sworn letter/complaint, Pobre invites the Courts attention to the following
excerpts of Respondents speech delivered on the Senate floor:
xxx
I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am
suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel
like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I
am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and
his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position
[of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in
another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots
xxx
To Pobre, such statements reflected a total disrespect on the part of the speaker
towards the Chief Justice and the other members of the Court, and constituted direct
contempt of court. Accordingly, Pobre asks that disbarment proceedings or other
disciplinary actions be taken against the lady senator.
Respondent Santiago however explained that those statements were covered by the
constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity, being part of a speech she
delivered in the discharge of her duty as member of Congress or its committee. The
purpose of her speech, according to her, was to bring out in the open controversial
anomalies in governance with a view to future remedial legislation. She averred that
she wanted to expose what she believed to be an unjust act of the Judicial Bar
Council (JBC), which, after sending out public invitations for nomination to the soon
to-be vacated position of Chief Justice, would eventually inform applicants that only
incumbent justices of the Supreme Court would qualify for nomination. She felt that
the JBC should have at least given an advanced advisory that non-sitting members of
the Court, like her, would not be considered for the position of Chief Justice.
The immunity Senator Santiago claims is rooted primarily on the provision of
Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution, which provides: A Senator or Member of
the House of Representative shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six
years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No
member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech
or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.

ISSUE: (1.) Whether or not respondent violated CPR

(2.) Whether or not respondent may be sanctioned or subject to
disciplinary proceedings
HELD:
(1.) Yes. To the Court, the lady senator has undoubtedly crossed the limits of
decency and good professional conduct. It is at once apparent that her
statements in question were intemperate and highly improper in substance.
Respondent clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which respectively provide:
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Canon 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by
others.
As a member of the Bar and officer of the court, like any other, is dutybound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court and to maintain the
respect due its members. Lawyers in public service are keepers of public
faith and are burdened with the higher degree of social responsibility,
perhaps higher than their brethren in private practice. Senator Santiago
should have known, as any perceptive individual, the impact her statements
would make on the peoples faith in the integrity of the courts.
(2.) No. Complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is dismissed,
conformably to Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution. Her privilege speech is
not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of
Court.
The Court has not lost sight of the importance of the legislative and
oversight functions of the Congress that enable this representative body to
look diligently into every affair of government, investigate and denounce
anomalies, and talk about how the country and its citizens are being served.
Courts do not interfere with the legislature or its members in the manner
they perform their functions in the legislative floor or in committee rooms.
Any claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of the
statement uttered by the member of the Congress does not destroy the
privilege. The disciplinary authority of the assembly and the voters, not the
courts, can properly discourage or correct such abuses committed in the
name of parliamentary immunity.

UY, Diane Margret

MELQUIADES GUTIERREZ vs. ENRIQUE H.R. ABILA, RESTITUTO

CLEMENTE and MANUEL FRANCISCO
FACTS:
On August 20, 1979, plaintiff-appellant filed an action for damages against
defendants Restituto Clemente, Manuel Francisco and Atty. Enrique H.R. Abila in
the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Basis of the complaint was the answer filed by
defendants Clemente and Francisco, through their counsel and co-defendant Abila,
likewise an action for damages instituted by plaintiff Gutierrez against Restituto
Clemente, Manuel Francisco and Assistant Provincial Fiscal Eliseo de Guzman,
pending before Branch XII of the same court.
In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendants in the aforesaid answer
wilfully, maliciously and malevolently recited false, sham, redundant, scandalous,
impertinent and irrelevant statements which served no purpose than to put his
character, personality and reputation in an utterly bad light; that said act being
contrary to Arts. 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and Sec. 20 [f],
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Some of the averments used were: twisted mind',
dirty-minded mind of plaintiff that can concoct an equally dirty thinking, limited
mind', devise of wickedness as earmarks of plaintiff's traits, plaintiff's wicked,
twisted and ignominious mentality, less a 'dignified pater familia', which is
indeed a big joke, capitalizing on it for vindictiveness and in procuring money
from his neighbors under a disguise of a court action
On appellees' motion, the trial court dismissed the second complaint for
damages, ruling that the statements, although defamatory, are absolutely privileged.
Plaintiff appealed to she Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, however,
certified the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the statements complained of are relevant and material,
therefore absolutely privileged
HELD:

Based on jurisprudence utterances made in the course of juridical

proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions and motions are absolutely
privileged when pertinent and relevant to the subject under inquiry, however false or
malicious such utterances may be. Restriction to this privilege happens if the pleader
goes beyond the requirements of the statute and alleges an irrelevant matter which is
libelous he loses his privilege. The requirement of materiality and relevancy is
imposed so that the protection given to individuals in the interest of an efficient
administration of justice may not be abused as a cloak from beneath which private
malice may be gratified
Repeated litigations between the same parties might indeed be tiresome,
even nettlesome, but this alone is not sufficient cause for calling another "dirtyminded," and of a "limited mind," "twisted mind" or to characterize his act as a
"device of wickedness as earmarks of plaintiff's traits."
It is noted that far from being isolated statements, these slanderous matters
pervade the entire dimension of the defendants' answer, with almost every paragraph
thereof scathing with spiteful imputations against the plaintiff. These imputations
constitute a grave reflection upon the mental and moral character and reputation of
the plaintiff, and they certainly achieve no purpose except to gratify the defendants'
rancor and ill-will.
The aforementioned personal opinions of the defendants, expressed in
vituperative and intemperate language, are palpably devoid of any relation whatever
to the subject of inquiry and have no place in a pleading. While indeed lawyers
should be allowed some latitude of remark or comment in the furtherance of the
causes they uphold, such remarks or comments should not trench beyond the bounds
of relevancy and propriety.
The defendants' answer is quite complete and sufficient without the
derogatory statements in question, and their inclusion therein was clearly made
solely for the purpose of giving vent to their ill-feelings against the plaintiff, a
purpose to which the mantle of absolute immunity does not extend.
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby set aside
and the records remanded to the court of origin for determination as to the amount of
damages to be awarded to the plaintiff-appellant.

DEATO, Jea Marie

GMA NETWORK, INC. (formerly known as REPUBLIC BROADCASTING

SYSTEM, INC.) and REY VIDAL vs. JESUS G. BUSTOS, M.D. et al.
FACTS:
In 1987, the Board of Medicine of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)
conducted the physicians licensure examinations. Out of the total 2,835 examinees
who took the examinations, 941 failed. Subsequently, over two hundred
other unsuccessful examinees filed a Petition for Mandamus before the RTC of
Manila to compel the PRC and the Board of Medical examiners to re-check and
reevaluate the test papers.
Vidal, as news writer and reporter of petitioner GMA Network, Inc. was assigned to
cover the filing of the mandamus petition. After securing a copy of the petition,
Vidal composed and narrated the news coverage for the evening news edition of
GMAs Channel 7 Headline News.
The text of the news report narrated the events which transpired as well as the main
context of the mandamus petition. It also featured a 1982 video clip of physician
wearing black armbands in protest.
Herein respondents filed an action for damages before the RTC against Vidal and
GMA Network, Inc. for their alleged reckless disregard for the truth, and had
defamed them by word of mouth and simultaneous visual presentation on GMA
Network. They added that, as a measure to make a forceful impact on their audience,
the defendants made use of an unrelated and old footage1 (showing physicians
wearing black armbands) to make it appear that other doctors were supporting and
sympathizing with the complaining unsuccessful examinees.

unsuccessful examinees of the petition for mandamus before the court, and made
without malice.
Privileged matters may be absolute or qualified. Absolutely privileged matters are
not actionable regardless of the existence of malice in fact. In absolutely privileged
communications, the mala or bona fides of the author is of no moment as the
occasion provides an absolute bar to the action. Examples of these are speeches or
debates made by Congressmen or Senators in the Congress or in any of its
committees. On the other hand, in qualifiedly or conditionally privileged
communications, the freedom from liability for an otherwise defamatory utterance is
conditioned on the absence of express malice or malice in fact. The second kind of
privilege, in fine, renders the writer or author susceptible to a suit or finding of libel
provided the prosecution established the presence of bad faith or malice in fact. To
this genre belongs private communications and fair and true report without any
comments or remarks falling under and described as exceptions in Article 354 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Actual malice, as a concept in libel, cannot plausibly be deduced from the fact of
petitioners having dubbed in their telecast an old unrelated video footage. As it were,
nothing in the said footage, be it taken in isolation or in relation to the narrated Vidal
report, can be viewed as reputation impeaching; it did not contain an attack, let alone
a false one, on the honesty, character or integrity or like personal qualities of any of
the respondents, who were not even named or specifically identified in the telecast.
It has been said that if the matter is not per se libelous, malice cannot be inferred
from the mere fact of publication.

RTC dismissed the action filed by respondents.

On appeal, the CA reversed the decision and awarded damages in favor of
respondents.
ISSUE: Whether or not the news report is libelous
HELD:
No. The subject news report was held to be a fair and true report, a simple narration
of the allegations contained in and circumstances surrounding the filing by the

1 According to the plaintiffs, the video footage in question actually related to a 1982
demonstration staged by doctors and personnel of the Philippine General Hospital
(PGH) regarding wage and economic dispute with hospital management.

UY, Diane Margret

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ATTY. RAUL H. SESBRENO

GR L-62449, July 16, 1984.
FACTS:
In an Information filed in March 1981, accused Atty. Sesbreno is charged with the
crime of libel based on alleged defamatory statements found in a pleading entitled
"PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION. The same was filed
for a civil action HEIRS OF CENIZA, ET AL. vs. UROT", where accused is the
counsel for the plaintiff. Accused allegedly made libelous statements imputing that
Atty. Ramon B. Ceniza (counsel for defendant in the civil action) is an irresponsible
person, and cannot be trusted, like Judas, a liar and irresponsible childish prankster
which were contained in a pleading.
The court granted the quashal of Information by motion of the Accused as he claims
that the statements were covered by the doctrine of absolutely privileged
communications.
ISSUE: Whether or not the statements made in the pleading were covered by
privileged communication
HELD:
Yes. The doctrine of privileged communication, moreover, is explicitly provided for
in the Revised Penal Code, as an exception to tile general principle that every
defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it is true, in the absence
of "good intention" and "justifiable motive".

However, this doctrine is not without qualification. Statements made in the course of
judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged that is, privileged regardless of
defamatory tenor and of the presence of malice if the same are relevant, pertinent,
or material to the cause in hand or subject of inquiry. A pleading must meet the test
of relevancy to avoid being considered libelous.
As to the degree of relevancy or pertinency necessary to make alleged defamatory
matters privileged, the courts are inclined to be liberal. The matter to which the
privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject
matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevance and
impropriety. In order that a matter alleged in a pleading may be privileged, it need
not be in every case material to the issues presented by the pleadings, It must,
however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the
controversy that it may become the subject of the inquiry in the course of the trial
Based on the facts, it appears that the Accuseds statement was in reply to Atty.
Ceniza charging Sesbreno with misrepresentation, prevarication, and "telling a
barefaced and documented lie.
Although the language used by defendant-appellee in the pleading in question was
undoubtedly strong, since it was made in legitimate defense of his own and of his
client's interest, such remarks must be deemed absolutely privileged and cannot be
the basis of an action for libel.

UY, Diane Margret

CUENCO vs. CUENCO

G.R. No. L-29560 March 31, 1976
FACTS:
On November 15, 1958, Plaintiff Cuenco filed a complaint against defendants as
corporate officers and members of the board of directors of the Bisaya Land
Transportation Co., Inc.; as well as Lazaro, as publisher and business manager of
"The Republic Daily", a newspaper published in Cebu City, with general circulation
in the province of Cebu and other parts of the Philippines.
Plaintiff alleges that he, as a private citizen and public official, is well known and
held in public esteem not only in Cebu City but also throughout the Philippines and
abroad, having been for many years a representative for the Fifth District of Cebu, as
then incumbent Congressman for said district; as member of the Philippine Bar, and
as a business executive, being a director and vice-president of the Bisaya Land
Transportation Co. Inc.; that on or about August 3, 1958, the defendants "conspiring
and confederating among themselves", caused to be printed, published and circulated
in "The Republic Daily", an article fully reproducing a Complaint filed against him.
The Complaint itself contained charges against the plaintiff made by the Bisaya
Land Corporation where he allegedly made illegal collections from the corporation.
ISSUE:
(1.) Whether or not the published complaint is libelous per se
(2.) Whether or not published complaint is privileged
HELD:
(1.) Yes. It cannot be questioned that the complaint itself contained charges
against the plaintiff made by the Bisaya corporation and contained in a civil
complaint filed in court of alleged wrongs committed by plaintiff that
supposedly caused injury to the Bisaya corporation. They may reflect
adversely on the reputation and the integrity of the herein plaintiff and are
libelous "per se". To charge or accuse a man of wrongdoing in court even if
there is a plea for redress of lawful grievance therein, when such

publication is clearly defamatory, cannot but place him in ridicule and

dishonor. Although the published article consisted of the gist and a
verbatim copy of the complaint, it impeached the virtue and reputation of
the plaintiff, who was then a prominent member of the House of
Representatives, by picturing him as having violated with impunity the
very constitution he was sworn to uphold and defend. It also paints him as
one who has cheated his client, the Bisaya Corporation, by illegally
collecting attorney's fees for his own personal benefit.
(2.) Yes. The published Complaint, although considered libelous "per se",
would fall under the protective mantle of privileged communication. It
follows that its author (defendant Lazaro) cannot be held liable for its
Publication.
It is the generally accepted rule that counsel, parties or witnesses are
exempted from liability in libel or slander for words otherwise defamatory
published in the course of judicial proceedings, provided that the
statements are connected with, or relevant, pertinent or material to, the
cause in hand or subject of inquiry.
In order the matter alleged in a pleading may be privileged, it need not be
in every case material to the issues presented by the pleadings.
A fair and true report of a complaint filed in court without remarks nor
comments even before an answer is filed or a decision promulgated should
be covered by the privilege.
The reason for the rule that pleadings in judicial proceedings are
considered privileged is not only because said pleadings have become part
of public record open to the public to scrutinize, but also due to the
undeniable fact that said pleadings are presumed to contain allegations and
assertions lawful and legal in nature, appropriate to the disposition of
issues ventilated before the courts for the proper administration of justice
and, therefore, of general public concern. Moreover, pleadings are
presumed to contain allegations substantially true because they can be
supported by evidence presented in good faith, the contents of which would
be under the scrutiny of courts and, therefore, subject to be purged of all
improprieties and illegal statements contained therein.

UY, Diane Margret