Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HELD:
RATIO:
Santos Jr. v. Llamas
Even if he had limited practice of law, it does not
FACTS: relieve him of the duties such as payment of IBP dues.
Rule 139-A provides:
Atty. Francisco Llamas was complained of not paying
his IBP dues.He was also cited in the complaint as not Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. Subject to
paying his professional tax or PTR as it was the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the
intermittently indicated in his pleadings filed in court. payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant
It was also an alleged falsity when he included his suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and
IBP-Rizal 259060 where in fact he was not in good default in such payment for one year shall be a ground
standing. Petitioner cited that Atty. Llamas was for the removal of the name of the delinquent member
dismissed as Pasay City Judge. But later revealed that from the Roll of Attorneys.
the decision was reversed and he was subsequently
promoted as RTC Judge of Makati. He also had criminal Under the Code of Professional Responsibility:
case involving estafabut was appealed pending in the
Court of Appeals. In the numerous violations of the Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
Code of Professional Responsibility, he expressed dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
willingness to settle the IBP dues and plea for a more
temperate application of the law. Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any court; nor shall he mislead
ISSUE: or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225
(Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003),
petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. On that
day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen
before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto,
Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and
now intends to resume his law practice.
Issue:
Ruling:
No explanation was offered by respondent, however, Fr. Ranhilio Aquino v. Atty Pascua
for turning over the motorcycle. But whatever the
reason was, respondent was mandated to secure prior Father Ranhilio Aquino vs Atty. Edwin ascua Facts:
consultations with and approval of the trial court. Father Aquino as the Academic head of Philippine
Judicial Academy, filed a complaint against Atty. Edwin
This Court has repeatedly emphasized that clerks of Pascua, a Notary Public for violation of the Notarial
court are essential and ranking officers of our judicial Practice Law. He alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified two
system who perform delicate functions vital to the documents wherein both documents had Doc. No.
prompt and proper administration of justice. Their 1213, Page No. 243. Book III, Series of 1998 and
duties include the efficient recording, filing and both are dated on December 10, 1998. It was shown
management of court records and, as previously by the Clerk of Court of RTC-Tuguegarao that none of
pointed out, the safekeeping of exhibits and public these entries appear in the Notarial Register of Atty.
property committed to their charge. Pascua. In his comment, Atty. Pascua admitted having
notarized the two documents on December 10, 1998,
Misconduct is a transgression of some established or but they were not entered in his Notarial Register due
definite rule of action; more particularly, it is an to the oversight of his legal secretary. Complainant
unlawful behavior by the public officer. The misconduct maintains that Atty. Pascuas omission was not due
is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of to inadvertence but a clear case of falsification.
corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to
disregard established rules, which must be proved by Issue: Whether or not Atty. Pascua violated the Notarial
substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is Practice Rule.
only simple, as in this case.
Ruling: Yes. Under the notarial law, the notary
public shall enter in such register, in chronological
order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn
to, or acknowledged before him, the person executing,
swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument. Failure
of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his a repetition of the same act will be dealt with more
notarial register touching his notarial acts in the severely. His notarial commission is revoked.
manner required by law is a ground for revocation of
his commission. Atty. Pascua claims that the
omission was not intentional but due to oversight of
his staff. Whichever is the case, Atty. Pascua cannot
escape liability. His failure to enter into his notarial
register the documents that he admittedly notarized is
a dereliction of duty on his part as a notary public and
he is bound by the acts of his staff. Furthermore, the
claim of Atty. Pascua of simple inadvertence is
untenable. The photocopy of his notarial register
shows that the last entry which he notarized on
December 28, 1998 is Document No. 1200 on Page In Re JBC vs. Judge QuitanJBC No. 013 | Aug
240. On the other hand, the two affidavit-complaints 22, 2007Facts:
allegedly notarized on December 10, 1998 are
Document Nos. 1213 and 1214, respectively, under Judge Jaime Vega Quitain was appointed Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),Branch 10,
Page No. 243, Book III. Thus, Fr. Ranhilio and the other
Davao City on May 17, 2003.
complainants are correct in maintaining that Atty. Subsequent thereto, the Office of the
Pascua falsely assigned fictitious numbers to the Court Administrator (OCA) received
questioned affidavit-complaints, a clear dishonesty on confidentialinformation that administrative and
his part not only as a Notary Public, but also as a criminal charges were filed against Judge Quitain in
member of the Bar. A member of the Bar may be hiscapacity as then Assistant Regional Director,
disciplined or disbarred for any misconduct in his National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM),Regional
Office 11, Davao City, as a result of which he was
professional or private capacity. The Court has
dismissed from the service per Administrative Order
invariably imposed a penalty for notaries public who (A.O.) No. 183 dated April 10, 1995.
were found guilty of dishonesty or misconduct in the In Personal Data Sheet (PDS) submitted to the JBC
performance of their duties. Atty Pascua is declared judge quitan declared that there were 5criminal cases
guilty of misconduct and is suspended from the filed against him before the Sandiganbayan, all were
practice of law for 3 months with a stern warning that dismissed.
NoAdministrative Case was disclosed by Quitan
in his PDS
Deputy Court administrator Christopher Lock The respondent said that during the administrative
requested certifie true copies of the criminalcases case by the NAPOLCOM one of itsmembers suggested
relative to the administrative complaints filed against to him that he will no longer be persecuted if
Quitan, particularly AdminisrativeOrder 180 which he tendered his resignationfrom the NAPOLCOM.
dismissed Quitan from service.
The Secretary of the DILG accepted the resignation.
In a letter dated November 28, 2003, the NAPOLCOM Quitan said that he did not disclose the administrative
furnished the Office of the CourtAdministrator (OCA) a charge because he was of the honest belief that he
copy of A.O. No. 183 showing that respondent Judge had no more pending administrative case by reason of
was indeeddismissed from the service for Grave his resignation. This did not persuade Administrator
Misconduct for falsifying or altering the Presbitero Velasco and DCA Lock that he should not
amountsreflected in disbursement vouchers in support beheld administratively liable. They submitted a
of his claim for reimbursement of expenses. Memorandum , to then Chief Justice Davide which
read:
The Administrative order stated that Quitan was
dismissed from service with forfeiture of payand An examination of the PDS submitted by Quitan with
benefits, this was signed by President Ramos himself. the JBC he concealed materialfacts and even
committed perjury in having answered yes to
In a letter dated October 22, 2003 addressed to DCA question 24, but withoutdisclosing the fact that he was
Lock, Judge Quitain denied havingcommitted any dismissed from government service.
misrepresentation before the JBC. He alleged
that during his interview, themembers thereof only Question 24: Have you ever been charged with or
inquired about the status of the criminal cases filed by convicted of or otherwise imposeda sanction for the
the NAPOLCOM before the violation of any law, decree, ordinance or regulation by
Sandiganbayan, and not about the administrative any court,tribunal or any other government office,
casesimultaneously filed against him. He also alleged agency or instrumentality in the Philippinesor in any
that he never received from the Office of the President foreign country or found guilty of an administrative
an official copy of A.O. No. 183 dismissing him from offense or imposed anyadministrative sanction?
the service. In the Mindanao Times quitan said: I was dismissed
from the NAPOLCOM office withoutdue process
The DCA Lock directed Quitan to explain within 10
days from notce why he did not includein his Personal In the Mindanao Daily Inquirer: Quitan vowed to clear
Data Sheet (PDS), which was sworn before a notary his name.
public , the administrativecases filed against him and The OCA recommended that: (1) the instant
the fact that he was dismissed from service. administrative case against respondent be
docketed as an administrative matter;; and (2) that No amount of explanation or justification can
he be dismissed from the service with erase the fact that Judge Quitan was dismissedfrom
prejudice to his reappointment to any position in the public service and that he deliberately withheld this
government, including government-owned or information.
controlled corporations, and with forfeiture of all Resignation does not warrant the dismissal of the
retirement benefits except accruedleave credits. administrative complaint filed against himwhile he was
still in service.
Quitan contended that before he filed his application Netither does his resignation render the
for RTC Judge with the JBC, he had noknowledge that administrative caseMoot and Academic.
he was administratively dismissed from the
NAPOLCOM service as the case Judge Quitain was removed from office after
was secretly heard and decided. investigation and was found guilty of
gravemisconduct. His dismissal from the service is a
OCA submitted its Memorandum dated stating therein clear proof of his lack of the requiredqualifications to
that it was adopting its earlier findingscontained in its be a member of the Bench.
Memorandum. Based on the documents presented, it WHEREFORE, in view of our finding that JUDGE JAIME
can not be denied that atthe time Judge Quitain V. QUITAIN is guilty of grave misconduct which would
applied as an RTC judge, he had full knowledge of A.O. have warranted his dismissal from the service had he
No. 183dismissing him from government service. not resigned during the pendencyof this case, he is
hereby meted the penalty of a fine of P40,000.00. It
Issue: appearing that he has yet toapply for his retirement
W/N Judge Quitan concealed his Administrative benefits and other privileges, if any, the Court likewise
Charges and Dismissal in the PDS and filedhis ORDERS the FORFEITURE of all benefits, except
application with knowledge of those preceedingly earned leave credits which Judge Quitain may be
mentioned. entitled to,and he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from
reinstatement and appointment to any
Held: branch,instrumentality or agency of the government,
Judge Quitan did not comply with the requirements including government-owned and/or
that were set by Article VII Section 7(3)of the controlled corporations.This Decision is immediately
constitution. executory.
Judge Quitain failed to disclose that he was Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Judge Jaime
administratively charged and dismissed from V. Quitains 201 File. SO ORDERED.
theservice for grave misconduct per A.O. No. 183,
1995 by no less than the former President of the
Philippines
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation.
BERNARDO v MEJIA These shall include but should not be limited to
certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or
The Facts:
chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
On December 27, 2004, Atty. Edmundo Macarubbo was
disbarred by the Court in Adm. Case No. 6148 for gross judges or judges associations and prominent members
immorality for having contracted a bigamous marriage of the community with proven integrity and probity. A
with complainant Florence Teves and a third marriage subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case
with Josephine Constantino while his first marriage to for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a
Helen Esparza was still subsisting.. He filed a Motion strong presumption of non-reformation.
for Reconsideration/Appeal for Compassion and Mercy
which the Court denied on June 4, 2012. On June 4,
2012, he again filed a Petition for Extraordinary Mercy
to ask for judicial clemency and be reinstated in the
Roll of Attorneys; the Court denied this, but the Office
of the Vice-President endorsed the same petition,
prompting the Court to look into the merits of the
petition.
The Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Edmundo Macarubbo should be
reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys.
* Succession to the IBP Presidency The Facts In AC No. A companion case, Bar Matter No. 1227, referred to
6697, Complainant Zoilo Antonio Velez sought the the letter-request of respondent, asking the Supreme
suspension or disbarment of Respondent Atty. Leonard Court to schedule his oath-taking as IBP national
de Vera (1) for misrepresentation through his president. On the other hand, AM No. 05-5-15-SC
concealment of the suspension order rendered against referred to the letter-report of IBP National President
him by the State Bar of California; and (2) for violation Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, furnishing the Court with the
of the rotation rule enunciated in Administrative May 13, 2005, IBP Resolution removing Atty. de Vera
Matter No. 491. The first ground concerned an from the latters positions as IBP board member and
administrative case filed against Atty. de Vera before executive vice-president, for committing acts inimical
the State Bar of California. The action arose from an to the board and the IBP in general. The controversy in
insurance case he had handled involving Julius Wills III, these two consolidated cases started when the IBP
who had figured in an automobile accident in 1986. To board[1] approved the withdrawal of a Petition[2]
settle the case amicably, Atty. de Vera received -- on docketed at the Supreme Court as Integrated Bar of
his clients behalf -- a $12,000 check, which he then the Philippines et al v. Senate of the Philippines et al. -
deposited in his personal account. Because of his SC-R165108. Subsequently, during the plenary session
irregular deposit of his client's funds, respondent was held at the 10th National IBP Convention,[3]
suspended from the practice of law for three years, respondent allegedly made some untruthful
upon the recommendation of the hearing referee. The statements, innuendos, and blatant lies in connection
case was not decided on the merits, because Atty. de with the IBP board's Resolution to withdraw the
Vera resigned from the California Bar. Petition On May 12, 2005, IBP Governor Romulo A.
Rivera wrote to IBP National President Cadiz, praying
Later, his resignation was accepted by the Supreme for the removal of the IBP board membership of Atty.
Court of California. On the second ground, complainant de Vera, who had allegedly committed acts inimical to
averred that respondents transfer of membership the board and the IBP in general.
from the Pasay, Paraaque, Las Pias and Muntinlupa
(PPLM) IBP Chapter to the Agusan del Sur IBP Chapter The following day,[4] during its 20th regular meeting,
was a circumvention of the rotation rule. Allegedly, the IBP board resolved by a twothirds vote to remove
respondent from his positions as a member of the amounting to moral turpitude in the State Bar of
board of governors and as the executive vice-president California and in the Philippines
(EVP) of the IBP. On June 13, 2005, the IBP board took
note of the vacancy in the EVP position, brought about 3. Whether on May 13, 2005, the board of governors
by the removal of Atty. de Vera. In his stead, IBP validly removed respondent from his positions as
Governor Pura Angelica Y. Santiago was formally governor and EVP of the IBP
elected and declared as EVP. 4. Whether Governor Salazar was validly elected as
On June 20, 2005, Atty. Santiago voluntarily EVP on June 25, 2005, and whether he could
relinquished that position. Thus, on June 25, 2005, consequently assume the presidency of the IBP for the
during its last regular meeting, the IBP board elected a term 2005-2007 The Court's
new EVP in the person of IBP Governor Jose Vicente B. Ruling First Issue: Res Judicata Res Judicata The Court
Salazar. On June 28, 2005, IBP National President Cadiz unanimously held in a per curiam Decision that AC No.
requested the Supreme Court's approval of Atty. 6052 did not constitute a bar to the filing of AC No.
Salazar's election and assumption of office as national 6697. The two administrative cases involved different
president, in the event that Atty. de Vera would be subject matters and causes of action. In AC No. 6052,
disbarred or suspended from the practice of law; or the subject matter was the qualification of Atty. de
should his removal from his positions as member of Vera to run for the position of IBP governor for Eastern
the 2003-2005 board of governors and as EVP of the Mindanao. In the present Administrative Complaint,
IBP be approved by the Court. Protesting the election the subject matter was his privilege to practice law.
of both Atty. Santiago and Atty. Salazar, respondent The two aforementioned cases did not seek the same
also denied having committed acts inimical to the IBP relief. In the first case, the complainants sought to
and its board. He maintained that his removal from his prevent respondent from assuming his post as IBP
two positions had been done without due notice and governor for Eastern Mindanao; the cause of action
due process. referred to his alleged violation of IBP bylaws. In the
The Issues The issues were as follows: second case, what was principally sought was his
suspension or disbarment; the primary cause of action
1. Whether the judgment in AC No. 6052 constituted a was his alleged violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the
bar to the filing of AC 6697 Code of Professional Responsibility.
2. Whether, in the course of his practice of law, Second Issue: Moral Turpitude Moral Turpitude In
Respondent Atty. de Vera committed malpractice resolving the second issue, the Court cited Maquera,
[5] according to which a judgment of suspension IBP national president or prohibited them from doing
against a Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction may perfectly legal acts in accomplishing that goal.
transmute into a similar judgment of suspension in the
Philippines, only if the basis of the foreign courts Third Issue: Validity of the Removal Validity of the
action included any of the grounds for disbarment or Removal The Court ruled that the constitutional
suspension in our jurisdiction. The Court opined that by provision on due process safeguarded life, liberty and
insisting that he was authorized by his clients father property. The position of EVP of the IBP, however, was
and attorney-in-fact to use the funds, Atty. de Vera was not a property within the constitutional sense. Further,
impliedly admitting his use of the Willis funds for his there was no right to security of tenure over that
own personal use. Undoubtedly, his unauthorized use position, as all that was required to remove any
of his clients funds was highly unethical. Canon 16 of member of the board of governors for cause was a
the Code of Professional Responsibility is emphatic resolution adopted by two thirds of the remaining
about this matter. The conduct of Atty. de Vera -- board members. Furthermore, in administrative
holding on to the money of his client without the proceedings, the essence of due process was simply
latters acquiescence -- was indicative of lack of the opportunity to explain ones side. The cross-
integrity and propriety. It was clear that by depositing examination of witnesses was not indispensable to due
the $12,000 check in his own bank account and using process. Neither was an actual hearing always
it for his own benefit, respondent was guilty of essential, especially under the factual milieu of this
malpractice, gross misconduct, and unethical behavior. case. Atty. de Veras actuations during the IBP National
He violated his oath to conduct himself with all good Convention in question had been witnessed by all the
fidelity to his client. Nevertheless, the Court decreed members of the board, upon whose shoulders the
that, where any lesser penalty could accomplish the determination of the cause for removal of an IBP
end desired, disbarment should not be decreed. governor was placed, subject to the approval of the
Considering the amount involved in this case, the Supreme Court. Atty. de Vera received a copy of the
Court considered the penalty of suspension for two Complaint against him; indeed, he was present in the
years appropriate. The Court found that the transfer by meeting when the matter was taken up. From the
Atty. de Vera of his membership to the Agusan del Sur transcript of stenographic notes of the meeting on May
IBP Chapter was within his rights. He could not be 13, 2005, in which he was removed, it was patent that
deemed to be guilty of unethical conduct or behavior. he had been given a fair opportunity to defend himself
Neither the Code of Professional Responsibility nor the against the accusations of Atty. Rivera. Under the IBP
Lawyers Oath punished lawyers for aspiring to be the rules, the expulsion of an IBP governor was done via a
Resolution adopted by two thirds of the remaining
members. The phrase remaining members excluded to fill the vacancies left by the removal of Atty. de
the complainant and the respondent. Of the 7 Vera. The 2003-2005 IBP board of governors election
remaining members qualified to vote, 5 voted for of a new EVP, who would assume the presidency for
expulsion, while 2 voted against it. The five votes still the term 2005-2007, was well within the authority and
added up to the two thirds vote required for expulsion. prerogative granted to the board by the IBP bylaws.
Removal for Cause Removal for Cause Conflicts and According to Article VII, specifically Section 47, [t]he
disagreements of varying degrees of intensity are EVP shall automatically become president for the next
inherent in the internal life of an organization. Like that succeeding term.
of any other organization, however, the effectiveness
of the IBP would be diluted if the conflicts are brought The phrase for the next succeeding term necessarily
outside its governing body. The impression would be implied that the EVP who should succeed Atty. Cadiz as
that the IBP, which speaks through its board of IBP president for the next succeeding term (2005-
governors, does not and cannot authoritatively speak 2007) should come from the members of the 2003-
for its members. Its prestige and reputation with 2005 IBP board of governors. Accordingly, the election
lawyers, as well as with the general public, would of Governor Santiago, and later of Governor Salazar
diminish accordingly. Because of the importance of upon the formers relinquishment of her EVP position,
retaining group cohesiveness and unity, no fault was was valid. In Bar Matter 491, the Court said that it was
attributed to the expulsion from the board of Atty. de the position of EVP that was actually rotated among
Vera, who had insisted on bringing to the public his the nine regional governors. The rotation with respect
disagreement with a policy/resolution approved by the to the presidency was merely the result of the
majority after due discussion. The cause for expulsion automatic succession rule of the IBP.
was legal, because the effectiveness of the board as a Thus, the rotation rule pertained in particular to the
governing body was being lessened. position of EVP; the automatic succession rule, to the
Fourth Issue: Validity of Governor Salazar's Validity of presidency. Intrinsic to the IBP bylaws was the principle
Governor Salazar's Election as EVP Election as EVP The that one who was to assume the highest position in its
removal of Atty. de Vera from his membership in the hierarchy must have been exposed to the demands
board of governors ipso facto meant also his removal and responsibilities of national leadership. By electing
as EVP. The IBP board had shown no grave abuse of the replacement EVP from among the members of the
discretion; thus, the Court found no reason to interfere 2003-2005 board of governors, the IBP stood to benefit
in the resolution to remove him. The board had specific from the experience of the 2003-2005 EVP, who would
and sufficient guidelines in its rules and bylaws on how have served in a national capacity prior to the latters
assumption of the highest position. Therefore, in succession in the leadership of the IBP, its board of
electing Atty. Salazar as EVP and thus ensuring a governors acted in accordance with its bylaws.
DE BARRERA vs. CASIANO U. LAPUT 3. That while being such counsel for the administratrix
Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera, and of the estate, the
CONCEPCION, C. J.: respondent Casiano U. Laput on January 10, 1955
presented to the complainant Nieves Rillas Vda. de of Final Accounting and Partition of Estate"; that this
Barrera at her residence at 854-D D. Jakosalem St., "notice" was legally unnecessary and useless; that he,
Cebu City, certain pleadings for the latter's signature however, caused it to be prepared in order to impress
in the aforementioned administration proceedings; upon Mrs. Barrera the necessity of filing her final
accounts in the aforementioned proceedings and,
4. That the complainant administratrix Nieves Rillas closing the same, because she was reluctant to do so;
Vda. de Barrera declined to sign said pleadings but that Mrs. Barrera had, also, filed against him a criminal
requested respondent to leave the papers in order that complaint for coercion with the office of the City Fiscal
she may first ask somebody to translate the same for of Cebu, based upon the same allegations made in her
her; administrative complaint herein; and that, after due
5. That the respondent Casiano U. Laput instead of investigation, said criminal complaint was dismissed
acceding to her (his) client's request became angry by the City Fiscal.
and told complainant to sign the papers, at the same From the evidence on record, we gather that, prior to
time drawing his revolver from its holster and placing January 10, 1955, Mrs. Barrera was not inclined to
it on his lap with the evident purpose of intimidating cause the proceedings for the settlement of the estate
the complainant, an old woman of 72 years old, into of Macario Barrera to be closed; that, upon the other
signing the papers or pleadings presented for hand, respondent wanted to put an end to said
signature; proceedings since there was nothing else to be done
6. That complainant administratrix Nieves Rillas Vda. therein so that he could collect his fees for services
de Barrera intimidated by the threat aforementioned rendered to Mrs. Barrera as administratrix of said
was compelled to sign as in fact she did sign, said estate; that he, therefore, prepared a petition for the
pleadings against her will; declaration of Mrs. Barrera as the universal heir of her
deceased husband, for the delivery to her of the
and praying that respondent be suspended from the residue of his estate and the termination of the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year. proceedings; that he, moreover, caused to be prepared
a notice "for the rendition of the final, accounting and
In his answer, respondent denied having committed partition" of said estate; that his purpose in preparing
the acts imputed to him in this complaint of the said petition was to induce her to virtually agree and
Solicitor General and alleged, in substance that the promise to submit her final accounts by signing this
papers he caused Mrs. Barrera to sign, on the occasion notice; that respondent presented said petition and
referred to in said pleading, was a "Notice for Rendition notice to Mrs. Barrera, on January 10, 1955, for her
signature; that she, however, refused to do so and WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Solicitor
suggested that the papers be left with her so that she General, respondent herein is hereby found guilty of
could have them read by somebody else; that, gross misconduct in office and accordingly suspended
annoyed or angered by this open manifestation of from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
distrust, respondent sought to offset her adamance by beginning from the date of entry of judgment in this
putting his revolver on his lap; and that, although he case. It is so ordered.
did not point the firearm at her, its display attained the
intended effect of intimidating Mrs. Barrera, who,
accordingly affixed her signature on the petition and
the notice aforementioned.