You are on page 1of 7

8/15/2015 G.R.No.

154200

TodayisSaturday,August15,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.154200July24,2007

NATIONALELECTRIFICATIONADMINISTRATIONanditsBOARDOFADMINISTRATORS,Petitioners,
vs.
DANILOMORALES,Respondent.

DECISION

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J>:

ThesoleissueforresolutioninthePetitionforReviewonCertiorari1beforeusiswhethertheCourtofAppeals
(CA) committed an error of law in its July 4, 2002 Decision2 in CAG.R. SP No. 62919 in ordering the
implementationofawritofexecutionagainstthefundsoftheNationalElectrificationAdministration(NEA).

Therebeingnodisputeastothefacts,3thefollowingfindingsoftheCAareadopted:4

DaniloMoralesand105otheremployees5(Morales,etal.)oftheNEAfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),
Branch 88, Quezon City, a class suit6 against their employer for payment of rice allowance, meal allowance,
medical/dental/optical allowance, childrens allowance and longevity pay purportedly authorized under Republic
Act(R.A.)No.6758.7InitsDecember16,1999Decision,8theRTCorderedNEA,thus:

WHEREFORE,foregoingconsidered,thepetitionisherebyGRANTEDdirectingtherespondentNEA,itsBoardof
Administratorstoforthwithsettletheclaimsofthepetitionersandotheremployeessimilarlysituatedandextendto
them the benefits and allowances to which they are entitled but which until now they have been deprived of as
enumerated under Section 5 of DBM CCC No. 10 and their inclusion in the Provident Funds Membership,
retroactivefromthedateoftheirappointmentsuptothepresentoruntiltheirseparationfromtheservice.

Nocosts.

SOORDERED.9

UponmotionofMorales,etal.,theRTCissuedaWritofExecutiondatedFebruary22,2000,10whichreads:

NOW,THEREFORE,youareherebydirectedtocauserespondentsNationalElectrificationAdministration(NEA)
anditsBoardofAdministratorswithprincipalofficeaddressat1050CDCBldg.,QuezonAvenue,QuezonCityto
forthwith settle the claims of the petitioners and other employees similarly situated and extend to them the
benefitsandallowancestowhichtheyareentitledbutwhichuntilnowtheyhavebeendeprivedofasenumerated
under Sec. 5 of DBM CCC No. 10 and you are further directed to cause their inclusion in the Provident Fund
Membership,retroactivefromthedateoftheirappointmentsuptothepresentoruntiltheirseparationfromthe
service.11

Thereafter, a Notice of Garnishment12 was issued against the funds of NEA with Development Bank of the
Philippines(DBP)totheextentofP16,581,429.00.

NEA filed a Motion to Quash Writs of Execution/Garnishment,13 claiming that the garnished public funds are
exempt from execution under Section 414 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1445,15 but manifesting that it is
willing to pay the claims of Morales, et al.,16 only that it has no funds to cover the same, although it already
requestedtheDepartmentofBudgetandManagement(DBM)forasupplementalbudget.17

InitsOrderofMay17,2000,theRTCdeniedtheMotiontoQuashbut,atthesametime,heldinabeyancethe
implementationoftheWritofExecution,thus:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_154200_2007.html 1/7
8/15/2015 G.R.No.154200
WHEREFORE, the motion to quash writs of execution/ garnishment is DENIED but the implementation of the
judgment is placed on hold for ninety (90) days reckoned from this day. The respondents are directed to
formally inform this Court and the petitioners of the prospect of obtaining funds from Department of
Budget and Management within 30 days from receipt and every 30 days thereafter, until the 90 day
periodhaslapsed.

ThemotiontodirectDBPtoreleasetothepetitionerstheNEAfundsgarnishedearlieramountingtoP16,591.429
isalsoDENIED.

SOORDERED.18(Emphasisours)

Morales,etal.filedaPartialMotionforReconsideration19buttheRTCdeniedit.20

Meanwhile, in a letter dated June 28, 2000, former DBM Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno informed NEA
AdministratorConradoM.EstrellaIIIofthedenialoftheNEArequestforasupplementalbudgetontheground
thattheclaimsunderR.A.No.6758whichtheRTChadorderedtobesettledcannotbepaidbecauseMorales,et
al.arenot"incumbentsofpositionsasofJuly1,1989whoareactuallyreceivingandenjoyingsuchbenefits."21

Moreover, in an Indorsement dated March 23, 2000, the Commission on Audit (COA) advised NEA against
making further payments in settlement of the claims of Morales, et al.. Apparently, COA had already passed
upon claims similar to those of Morales, et al. in its earlier "Decision No. 95074" dated January 25, 1995.
PortionsoftheIndorsementreadasfollows:

ThisOfficeconcurswiththeaboveview.Thecourtmayhaveexceededitsjurisdictionwhenitentertained
thepetitionfortheentitlementoftheafterhiredemployeeswhichhadalreadybeenpasseduponbythis
CommissioninCOADecisionNo.95074datedJanuary25,1995.There,itwasheldthat:"theadverseaction
of this Commission sustaining the disallowance made by the Auditor, NEA, on the payment of fringe benefits
grantedtoNEAemployeeshiredfromJuly1,1989toOctober31,1989isherebyreconsidered.Accordingly,
subjectdisallowanceislifted."

Thus,employeeshiredaftertheextendeddateofOctober31,1989,pursuanttotheaboveCOAdecision
cannot defy that decision by filing a petition for mandamus in the lower court. Presidential Decree No.
1445 and the 1987 Constitution prescribe that the only mode for appeal from decisions of this
CommissionisoncertioraritotheSupremeCourtinthemannerprovidedbylawandtheRulesofCourt.
Clearly,thelowercourthadnojurisdictionwhenitentertainedthesubjectcaseofmandamus.Andvoid
decisions of the lower court can never attain finality, much less be executed. Moreover, COA was not
madeapartythereto,hence,itcannotbecompelledtoallowthepaymentofclaimsonthebasisofthe
questioneddecision.

PREMISESCONSIDERED,theauditorofNEAshouldpostauditthedisbursementvouchersonthebasesofthis
Commission's decision particularly the abovecited COA Decision No. 94074 [sic] and existing rules and
regulations, as if there is no decision of the court in the subject special civil action for mandamus. At the same
time,managementshouldbeinformedoftheintentionofthisOfficetoquestionthevalidityofthecourtdecision
beforetheSupremeCourtthroughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral.22(Emphasisours)

Parenthetically,therecordsathanddonotindicatewhenMorales,etal.wereappointed.EventheDecember16,
1999RTCDecisionisvagueforitmerelystatesthattheywereappointedafterJune30,1989,whichcouldmean
thattheywereappointedeitherbeforethecutoffdateofOctober31,1989orafter.23Thus,thereisnotenough
basis for this Court to determine that the foregoing COA Decision No. 95074 adversely affects Morales, et al..
Moreover, the records do not show whether COA actually questioned the December 16, 1999 RTC Decision
beforethisCourt.

OnJuly18,2000,Morales,etal.filedaMotionforanOrdertoImplementWritofExecution,pointingoutthatthe
reason cited in the May 17, 2000 RTC Order for suspension of the implementation of the writ of execution no
longerexistsgiventhatDBMalreadydeniedNEAsrequestforfunding.24TheyalsofiledaPetitiontoCiteNEA
Board of Administrators Mario Tiaoqui, Victoria Batungbacal, Federico Puno and Remedios Macalingcag in
ContemptofCourt25forallegedlywithholdingappropriationstocovertheirclaims.

Actingfirstonthepetitionforcontempt,theRTCissuedaResolutiondatedDecember11,2000,towit:

ThecourtisawareofitsorderdatedMay17,2000,particularlythedirectiveuponrespondentstoinformthiscourt
andthepetitionersoftheprospectofobtainingfundsfromtheDepartmentofBudgetandManagementwithinthe
period specified. From the comments of the respondents, it appears they did or are doing their best to
secure the needed funds to satisfy the judgment sought to be enforced.In this regard, Administrative
CircularNo.102000oftheSupremeCourtprovides:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_154200_2007.html 2/7
8/15/2015 G.R.No.154200
"InordertopreventpossiblecircumventionoftherulesandproceduresoftheCommissiononAudit,judgesare
herebyenjoinedtoobserveutmostcaution,prudenceandjudiciousnessintheissuanceofwritsofexecutionto
satisfymoneyjudgmentsagainstgovernmentagenciesandlocalgovernmentunits.

JudgesshouldbearinmindthatinCommissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego (31 SCRA 617, 625 [1970],
thisCourtexplicitlystated:

"TheuniversalrulethatwheretheStategivesitsconsenttobesuedbyprivatepartieseitherbygeneralorspecial
law,itmaylimitclaimant'sactiononlyuptothecompletionofproceedingsanteriortothestageofexecutionand
thepowerofthecourtendswhenthejudgmentisrendered,sincegovernmentfundsandpropertiesmaynotbe
seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgment, is based on obvious considerations of
publicpolicy.Disbursementsofpublicfundsmustbecoveredbythecorrespondingappropriationasrequiredby
law.ThefunctionsandpublicservicesrenderedbytheStatecannotbeallowedtobeparalyzedordisruptedby
thediversionofpublicfundsfromtheirlegitimateandspecificobjectsasappropriatedbylaw."

Moreover, it is settled jurisprudence that upon determination of State liability, the prosecution, enforcement or
satisfactionthereofmuststillbepursuedinaccordancewiththerulesandprocedureslaiddowninP.D.No.1445,
otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227
SCRA 693, 70102 [1993] citing Republic v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84 [1973]). All money claims against the
Governmentmust"firstbefiledwiththeCommissiononAuditwhichmustactuponitwithinsixtydays.Rejection
oftheclaimwillauthorizetheclaimanttoelevatethemattertotheSupremeCourtoncertiorariandineffectsue
theStatethereby(P.D.1445,Sections4950)."

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, petition to cite respondents in contempt of court is premature, hence the
sameisherebyDENIED.

SOORDERED.26(Emphasisours)

Subsequently, the RTC issued an Order dated January 8, 2001, denying the Motion for an Order to Implement
WritofExecution,citingthesameSCAdministrativeCircularNo.102000.

UponaPetitionforCertiorari27filedbyMorales,etal.,theCArenderedtheJuly4,2002Decisionassailedherein,
thedecretalportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Order dated January 8, 2001 and the Resolution of
December11,2000ofthepublicrespondentJudgearedeclaredNULLandVOID.

Accordingly,therespondentjudgeisdirectedtoimplementtheWritofExecutionrelativethereto.

SOORDERED..28

The CA held that NEA can no longer take shelter under the provisions of P.D. No. 1445 and SC Administrative
CircularNo.102000becauseitisagovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporation(GOCC)createdunderP.D.No.
269, effective August 6, 1973.29 Citing Philippine National Bank v. Court of Industrial Relations,30 the CA held
that, as such GOCC, petitioner NEA may be subjected to court processes just like any other corporation
specifically,itspropertiesmaybeproceededagainstbywayofgarnishmentorlevy.31

NEAanditsBoardofDirectors(petitioners)immediatelyfiledhereinpetitionforreview.Itistheircontentionthat
theCAerredindirectingimplementationofthewritofexecutionontwogrounds:first,executionisprematureas
Morales,etal.(respondents)haveyettofiletheirjudgmentclaimwiththeCOAinaccordancewithP.D.No.1445
and SC Administrative Circular No. 10200032 and second, execution is not feasible without DBM as an
indispensablepartytothepetitionforcertiorariforitissaiddepartmentwhichcancertifythatfundsareavailable
tocoverthejudgmentclaim.33

Thepetitionismeritorious.

Indeed, respondents cannot proceed against the funds of petitioners because the December 16, 1999 RTC
Decision sought to be satisfied is not a judgment for a specific sum of money susceptible of execution by
garnishmentitisaspecialjudgmentrequiringpetitionerstosettletheclaimsofrespondentsinaccordancewith
existingregulationsoftheCOA.

In its plain text, the December 16, 1999 RTC Decision merely directs petitioners to "settle the claims of
[respondents] and other employees similarly situated."34 It does not require petitioners to pay a certain sum of
money to respondents. The judgment is only for the performance of an act other than the payment of money,
implementationofwhichisgovernedbySection11,Rule39oftheRulesofCourt,whichprovides:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_154200_2007.html 3/7
8/15/2015 G.R.No.154200
Section11.Executionofspecialjudgments.Whenajudgmentrequirestheperformanceofanyactotherthan
those mentioned in the two preceding sections, a certified copy of the judgment shall be attached to the writ of
execution and shall be served by the officer upon the party against whom the same is rendered, or upon any
other person required thereby, or by law, to obey the same, and such party or person may be punished for
contemptifhedisobeyssuchjudgment.

Garnishmentcannotbeemployedtoimplementsuchformofjudgment.UnderSection9ofRule39,towit:

Section9.Executionofjudgmentsformoney,howenforced.

xxxx

(c)Garnishmentofdebtsandcredits.Theofficermaylevyondebtsduethejudgmentobligorandothercredits,
including bank deposits, financial interests, royalties, commissions and other personal property not capable of
manual delivery in the possession or control of third parties. Levy shall be made by serving notice upon the
person owing such debts or having in his possession or control such credits to which the judgment obligor is
entitled.Thegarnishmentshallcoveronlysuchamountaswillsatisfythejudgmentandalllawfulfees.

Garnishmentisproperonlywhenthejudgmenttobeenforcedisoneforpaymentofasumofmoney.

The RTC exceeded the scope of its judgment when, in its February 22, 2000 Writ of Execution, it directed
petitionersto"extendto[respondents]thebenefitsandallowancestowhichtheyareentitledbutwhichuntilnow
theyhavebeendeprivedofasenumeratedunderSec.5ofDBMCCCNo.10andxxxtocausetheirinclusionin
theProvidentFundMembership."35Worse,itcountenancedtheissuanceofanoticeofgarnishmentagainstthe
funds of petitioners with DBP to the extent of P16,581,429.00 even when no such amount was awarded in its
December16,1999Decision.

However,initssubsequentOrdersdatedMay17,2000andJanuary8,2001,theRTCattemptedtosetmatters
rightbydirectingthepartiestonowawaittheoutcomeofthelegalprocessesforthesettlementofrespondents
claims.

Thatisonlyright.

Withoutquestion,petitionerNEAisaGOCC36ajuridicalpersonalityseparateanddistinctfromthegovernment,
with capacity to sue and be sued.37 As such GOCC, petitioner NEA cannot evade execution its funds may be
garnished or levied upon in satisfaction of a judgment rendered against it.38 However, before execution may
proceedagainstit,aclaimforpaymentofthejudgmentawardmustfirstbefiledwiththeCOA.39

Under Commonwealth Act No. 327,40 as amended by Section 26 of P.D. No. 1445, it is the COA which has
primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle "all debts and claims of any sort" due from or owing the
Governmentoranyofitssubdivisions,agenciesandinstrumentalities,includinggovernmentownedorcontrolled
corporationsandtheirsubsidiaries.41WithrespecttomoneyclaimsarisingfromtheimplementationofR.A.No.
6758,theirallowanceordisallowanceisforCOAtodecide,subjectonlytotheremedyofappealbypetitionfor
certioraritothisCourt.42

Alltold,theRTCactedprudentlyinhaltingimplementationofthewritofexecutiontoallowthepartiesrecourseto
theprocessesoftheCOA.ItmaybethatthetenoroftheMarch23,2000IndorsementissuedbyCOAalready
spellsdoomforrespondentsclaimsbutitisnotforthisCourttopreempttheactionoftheCOAonthepostaudit
tobeconductedbyitperitsIndorsementdatedMarch23,2000. 1 a v v p h i1

In fine, it was grave error for the CA to reverse the RTC and direct immediate implementation of the writ of
executionthroughgarnishmentofthefundsofpetitioners,

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheJuly4,2002DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisREVERSED and
SETASIDE. The Resolution dated December 11, 2000 and Order dated January 8, 2001 of the Regional Trial
Court,Branch88,QuezonCityinSpecialCivilActionNo.Q9938275areREINSTATED.

SOORDERED.

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_154200_2007.html 4/7
8/15/2015 G.R.No.154200
Chairperson

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes

1UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourtrollo,p.7.

2PennedbyAssociateJusticeEliezerR.DeLosSantoswiththeconcurrenceofAssociateJusticesHilarion
L.AquinoandDaniloB.Pine,id.at1823.

3Petition,id.at9.

4CADecision,id.at1821.

5TherecordsmerelystatethattheywereappointedafterJune30,1989RTCDecision,CArollo,p.24.

6DocketedasSpecialCivilActionNo.Q9938275.

7CompensationandClassificationActof1989,effectiveJuly1,1989.

8CArollo,p.23.

9Id.at26.

10Id.at27.

11Id.at28.

12Thereisnocopyofthisnoticeintherecords.

13CArollo,p.29.

14 Section 4. Fundamental principles. Financial transactions and operations of any government agency
shallbegovernedbythefundamentalprinciplessetforthhereunder,towit:1.Nomoneyshallbepaidoutof
any public treasury of depository except in pursuance of an appropriation law or other specific statutory
authority2.Governmentfundsorpropertyshallbespentorusedsolelyforpublicpurposes3.Trustfunds
shall be available and may be spent only for the specific purpose for which the trust was created or the
funds received 4. Fiscal responsibility shall, to the greatest extent, be shared by all those exercising
authority over the financial affairs, transactions, and operations of the government agency 5.
Disbursements or disposition of government funds or property shall invariably bear the approval of the
properofficials6.Claimsagainstgovernmentfundsshallbesupportedwithcompletedocumentation7.All
lawsandregulationsapplicabletofinancialtransactionsshallbefaithfullyadheredto8.Generallyaccepted
principlesandpracticesofaccountingaswellasofsoundmanagementandfiscaladministrationshallbe
observed,providedthattheydonotcontraveneexistinglawsandregulations.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_154200_2007.html 5/7
8/15/2015 G.R.No.154200
15OrdainingandInstitutingaGovernmentAuditingCodeofthePhilippines,approvedJune11,1978.

16MotiontoQuash,CArollo,p.29.

17Id.at30.

18Id.at43.

19Id.at44.

20Id.at51

21Id.at69.

22Id.at7172.

23Supranote5.

24Id.at52.

25Id.at55.

26Id.at2021.

27Id.at2.

28Rollo,p.23.

29Id.at21.

30G.R.No.L32667,January31,1978,81SCRA314.

31Rollo,pp.2223.

32Id.at1214.

33Id.at1415.

34CArollo,p.26.

35Id.at28.

36 National Irrigation Administration v. Enciso, G.R. No. 142571, May 5, 2006, 489 SCRA 570, 575
NationalElectrificationAdministrationv.CommissionOnAudit,427Phil.464,476(2002).

37Section4,P.D.No.269partlyreads:

Section4.NEAAuthorities,PowersandDirectives.The NEA is hereby authorized, empowered and


directed to promote, encourage and assist public service entities, particularly cooperatives, to the
endofachievingtheobjectiveofmakingserviceavailablethroughoutthenationonanareacoverage
basisasrapidlyaspossibleandforsuchpurposeitishereby,withoutlimitingthegeneralityofthe
foregoingandinadditiontootherauthorizations,powersanddirectivesestablishedbythisDecree,
specifically authorized, empowered and directed: (a) To have a continuous succession under its
corporatenameuntilotherwiseprovidedbylaw(b)Toprescribeandthereaftertoamendandrepeal
itsbylawsnotinconsistentwiththisDecree(c)Toadoptanduseasealandalteritatitspleasure
(d)Tosueandtobesuedinanycourt:Provided,ThatNEAshall,unlessitconsentsotherwise,be
immunetosuitsforactsexdelicti(e)Tomakecontractofeverynameandnatureandtoexecuteall
instrumentsnecessaryorconvenientforthecarryingonofitsbusiness.

38Sisonv.Florendo,A.M.OCAIPINo.041901P,February28,2005NationalHousingAuthorityv.Heirs
ofGuivelondo,452Phil.481,495(2003)RizalCommercialBankingCorporationv.DeCastro,G.R.No.L
34548,November29,1988,168SCRA49,59PhilippineRockIndustries,Inc.v.BoardofLiquidators,G.R.
No.84992,December15,1989,180SCRA171,174175PhilippineNationalBankv.Pabalan,G.R.No.L
33112,June15,1978,83SCRA595,601602PhilippineNationalRailwaysv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_154200_2007.html 6/7
8/15/2015 G.R.No.154200
L55347, October 4, 1985, 139 SCRA 87, 91 Philippine National Bank v. Court of Industrial Relations,
supranote30,at318.
39Parreov.CommissiononAudit,G.R.No.162224,June07,2007,citingDepartmentofAgriculture
v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.104269,November11,1993,227SCRA693,701.

40AnActFixingtheTimeWithinWhichtheAuditorGeneralShallRenderhisDecisionsandPrescribingthe
MannerofAppealTherefrom.

41AsimplementedunderSection1,RuleIIofthe1997COARulesofProceduire,thus:

Section1.Generaljurisdiction.TheCommissiononAuditshallhavethepower,authority,andduty
toexamine,auditandsettleallaccountspertainingtotherevenueandreceiptsof,andexpenditures
orusesoffundsandproperty,ownedorheldintrustby,orpertainingtotheGovernment,oranyof
its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including governmentowned and controlled
corporationswithoriginalcharters,andonapostauditbasis:(a)constitutionalbodies,commissions
and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under the Constitution (b) autonomous state
colleges and universities (c) other governmentowned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiariesand(d)suchnongovernmentalentitiesreceivingsubsidyorequitydirectlyorindirectly,
from or through the government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to
such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the
auditedagenciesisinadequate,theCommissionmayadoptsuchmeasures,includingtemporaryor
special preaudit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the
generalaccountsoftheGovernment,andforsuchperiodasmaybeprovidedbylaw,preservethe
vouchersandothersupportingpaperspertainingthereto.

xxxx

Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not limited to the following cases and matters
involving:xxxMoneyclaimsduefromorowingtoanygovernmentagencyxxx.

42NationalElectrificationAdministrationv.CommissiononAudit,supranote36PhilippineNationalBankv.
Palma,G.R.No.157279,August9,2005,466SCRA307PublicEstatesAuthorityv.CommissiononAudit,
G.R.No.156537,January24,2007PhilippinePortsAuthorityv.CommissiononAudit, G.R. No. 100773,
October16,1992,214SCRA653ManilaInternationalAirportAuthorityv.CommissiononAudit,G.R.No.
104217,December5,1994,238SCRA714.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_154200_2007.html 7/7

You might also like