Lazada Philippines aff_i?offer_id=3127&file_id=94990&aff_id=150634 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government

veryhot_post - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government Author Topic: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s  (Read 1350 times)

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • avatar_3258_1429902436 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • Posts: 45224
  • medal1 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal2 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal3 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal4 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal5 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • Share Post
xx - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2018, 02:15:06 AM »

Decision                             39                             G.R. No. 237428

In Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Sps. Dy Hong Pi, et al.,(100) this Court explained that:

    [T]he second paragraph of Rule 137, Section 1,(101) does not give judges unfettered discretion to decide whether to desist from hearing a case. The inhibition must be for just and valid causes, and in this regard, We have noted that the mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is without basis. This Court has to be shown acts or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before it can brand them with the stigma of bias or partiality. Moreover, extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself. The only exception to the rule is when the error is so gross and patent as to produce an ineluctable inference of bad faith or malice.(102) (Citations omitted)

In this case, it does not appear that there are grounds for compulsory inhibition. As to voluntary inhibition, the mere fact that some of the Associate Justices participated in the hearings of the Committee on Justice determining probable cause for the impeachment of respondent does not make them disqualified to hear the instant petition. Their appearance thereat was in deference to the House of Representatives whose constitutional duty to investigate the impeachment complaint filed against respondent could not be doubted. Their appearance was with the prior consent of the Supreme Court En Banc and they faithfully observed the parameters that the Court set for the purpose. Their statements in the hearing, should be carefully viewed within this context, and should not be hastily interpreted as an adverse attack against respondent.

In fact, Justice Tijam, in his Sworn Statement(103) submitted to the House Committee on Justice, clearly identified the purpose of his attendance thereat:

    2. In reply, I sent a letter to Representative Umali on November 24, 2017, informing him that inasmuch as the issue involved actions of the Supreme Court En Banc, I deemed it proper to first secure its approval before participating in the House Committee hearing.

-------
100 606 Phil. 615 (2009).
101 Section I. Disqualification of judges. - No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record. A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
102 Supra at 638-639.
103 Dated December 6, 2017.
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

pCloud Premium

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • avatar_3258_1429902436 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • Posts: 45224
  • medal1 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal2 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal3 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal4 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal5 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • Share Post
xx - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #41 on: June 09, 2018, 03:27:31 AM »

Decision                             40                             G.R. No. 237428

    3. On November 28, 2017, the Supreme Court En Banc gave clearance for Justices who have been invited by the House Committee on Justice to testify in connection with the impeachment complaint, to give testimony on administrative matters if they so wish. The Court's Resolution in this regard states that the authority was granted "only because the proceedings before the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives constitute part of the impeachment process under Section 3, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution."

A copy of the Court's Resolution is hereto attached as Annex "A."

    4. I am submitting this Sworn Statement to the House Committee on Justice as my testimony in relation to A.M. No. 17-06-02- SC, based on my best recollection of events relating to said matter and available records. I shall, however, be willing to give further testimony should the House Committee find it appropriate to propound questions thereon at the December 11, 2017 Committee hearing, subject to applicable limitations under law and relevant rules.

    5. I will appear and give testimony before the House Committee on Justice not as a witness for the complainant, but to honor the Committee's invitation to shed light on A.M. No. 17-06-02- SC and to accord due respect to the Constitutionally established process of impeachment. (Emphasis ours)


Likewise, the Justices, including Justice Tijam, who appeared during the House Committee on Justice hearings, refused to form any conclusion or to answer the uniform query as to whether respondent's acts constitute impeachable offenses, as it was not theirs to decide but a function properly belonging to the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court.(104) Evidently, no bias and prejudice on the part of the Justices could be inferred therein.

A judge may decide, "in the exercise of his sound discretion," to recuse himself from a case for just or valid reasons. The phrase just or valid reasons, as the second requisite for voluntary inhibition, must be taken to mean---

    x x x causes which, though not strictly falling within those enumerated in the first paragraph, are akin or analogous thereto. In determining what causes are just, judges must keep in mind that next to importance to the duty of rendering a righteous judgment is that of doing it in such a manner as will beget no suspicion of the fairness and integrity of the judge. For it is an accepted axiom that every litigant, including the state, in criminal cases, is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, and the law intends that no judge shall preside in any case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial, and independent.(105)

-------
104 See TSN of the House Committee on Justice dated December 11, 2017, p. Xl-2;XVII-l.
105 30 Am. Jr. 767.

pCloud Premium

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • avatar_3258_1429902436 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • Posts: 45224
  • medal1 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal2 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal3 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal4 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal5 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • Share Post
xx - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2018, 03:38:51 AM »

Decision                             41                             G.R. No. 237428

Respondent's call for inhibition has been based on speculations, or on distortions of the language, context and meaning of the answers the Justices may have given as sworn witnesses in the proceedings of the House Committee on Justice.

Justice Bersamin's statement that "Ang Supreme Court ay hindi po maaring mag function kung isa ay diktador," is clearly a hypothetical statement, an observation on what would the Court be if any of its Members were to act dictatorially.

Likewise, the Court cannot ascribe bias in Justice Bersamin's remark that he was offended by respondent's attitude in ignoring the collegiality of the Supreme Court when she withdrew the Justices' "privilege" to recommend nominees to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court. It would be presumptuous to equate this statement to a personal resentment as respondent regards it. There has always been a high degree of professionalism among the Members of the Court in both their personal and official dealings with each other. It cannot also be denied that the statement reflected a natural sentiment towards a decision reached and imposed by a member of a collegial body without consultation or consensus.

Meanwhile, respondent's allegation of actual bias and partiality against Justice Peralta is negated by his testimony during the January 15, 2018 hearing of the House Committee on Justice, where he stated that he has been very supportive of the Judiciary reforms introduced by respondent as the Chief Justice, even if she suspects that he is one of those behind her impeachment.

Justice Peralta's testimony before the House Committee on Justice also contradicts respondent's allegation that Justice Peralta's apparent bias arose from his belief that respondent caused the exclusion of his wife, Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, from the list of applications for the position of CA Presiding Justice. Justice Peralta has made it clear during the February 12, 2018 Congressional hearing that he has already moved on from said issue and that the purpose of his testimony was merely to protect prospective applicants to the Judiciary.

Justice Peralta's testimony during the Congressional hearing that "had (he) been informed of (the) letter dated July 23, 2012 and a certificate of clearance, (he) could have immediately objected to the selection of the Chief Justice for voting because this is a very clear deviation from existing rules that if a member of the Judiciary would like ... or. .. a candidate would like to apply for Chief Justice, then she or he is mandated to submit the SALNs," is clearly a' hypothetical statement, which will not necessarily result in the disqualification of respondent from nomination. It was also expressed in line with his functions as then Acting Chairperson of the JBC, tasked with

pCloud Premium

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • avatar_3258_1429902436 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • Posts: 45224
  • medal1 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal2 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal3 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal4 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal5 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • Share Post
xx - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2018, 03:47:28 AM »

Decision                             42                             G.R. No. 237428

determining the constitutional and statutory eligibility of applicants for the position of Chief Justice. It bears stressing, too, that at the time said statement was made, the petition for quo warranto has not been filed; thus, such statement cannot amount to a prejudgment of the case.

Furthermore, according to Justice Peralta, while he was then the Acting Ex Officio Chairperson of the JBC at the time of respondent's application for the position of Chief Justice, he had no personal knowledge of the disputed facts concerning the proceedings, specifically the matters considered by the members of the JBC in preparing the shortlist of nominees. He explained that it was the ORSN of the JBC which was tasked to determine completeness of the applicants' documentary requirements, including the SALNs.

As for Justice Martires' statements during the Oral Arguments, this Court does not view them as indication of actual bias or prejudice against respondent. Our review of the record reveals that Justice Martires' did not refer to respondent as the object of his statements, as follows:

JUSTICE MARTIRES: Solicitor Calida, would you agree with me na lahat ng taong may dibdib ay may kaba sa dibdib? At lahat ng taong may ulo ay may katok sa ulo.

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA: Yes, Your Honor, I agree.

JUSTICE MARTIRES: Now would you consider it a mental illness (sic) when a person always invokes God as the source of his strength? The source of his inspiration? The source of happiness? The source of everything in life? Is that a mental illness.

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA: Not necessarily, Your Honor.

JUSTICE MARTIRES: So, I'm just making a follow-up to the question that Justice Velasco earlier asked. So, would you agree with me that the psychiatrist made a wrong evaluation with respect to the psychiatric report of the Chief Justice?
(106)

Neither are we prepared to conclude that Justice Martires' statements were based on an extraneous source, other than what what he has learned or encountered over the course of the instant proceedings. There is nothing in the interpellation, nor in Justice Martires' statements that he has read the psychiatric report, nor has read newspaper accounts tackling the same. He merely asked the OSG if he has read the same, and his opinion regarding it.

-------
106 Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated April 10, 2018, pp. 234-235.

pCloud Premium

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • avatar_3258_1429902436 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • Posts: 45224
  • medal1 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal2 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal3 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal4 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal5 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • Share Post
xx - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2018, 04:57:16 AM »

Decision                             43                             G.R. No. 237428

Contrary to respondent's contentions, Justice Martires has not suggested that she suffers from some mental or psychological illness. At most, his questions and statements were merely hypothetical in nature, which do not even constitute as an opinion against respondent. Certainly, to impute actual bias based on such a brief discourse with respect to hypothetical matters is conjectural and highly speculative. "Allegations and perceptions of bias from the mere tenor and language of a judge is insufficient to show prejudgment."(107)

In the same vein, insinuations that the Justices of the Supreme Court are toeing the line of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte in entertaining the quo warranto petition must be struck for being unfounded and for sowing seeds of mistrust and discordance between the Court and the public. The Members of the Court are beholden to no one, except to the sovereign Filipino people who ordained and promulgated the Constitution. It is thus inappropriate to misrepresent that the Solicitor General who has supposedly met consistent litigation success before the Supreme Court shall likewise automatically and positively be received in the present quo warranto action. That the Court spares the Solicitor General the rod is easily dispelled by the Court's firm orders in G.R. Nos. 234359 and 234484 concerning alleged extra legal killings - a case directly concerning the actuations of the executive department - to provide the Court with documents relative to the Oplan Tokhang operations and by a unanimous vote, rebuked the Solicitor General's plea for reconsideration. Suffice to say that the Court decides based on the merits of a case and not on the actors or the supposed benefactors involved.

Absent strong and compelling evidence establishing actual bias and partiality on the part of the Justices whose recusal was sought, respondent's motions for inhibition must perforce fail. Mere conjectures and speculations cannot justify the inhibition of a Judge or Justice from a judicial matter. The presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role of dispensing justice in accordance with law and evidence, and without fear or favor,. should not be abandoned without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

In Dimo Realty & Development, Inc. v. Dimaculangan,(108) we held:

    "(B)ias and prejudice, to be considered valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of judges, must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice. These cannot be presumed, especially if weighed against the sacred obligation of judges whose oaths of office require them to administer justice without

-------
107 Gochan v. Gochan, 446 Phil. 433, 439 (2003);
     People v. Court of Appeals, 369 Phil. 150, 158 (1999).
108 469 Phil. 373 (2004).

pCloud Premium

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • avatar_3258_1429902436 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • Posts: 45224
  • medal1 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal2 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal3 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal4 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal5 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • Share Post
xx - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2018, 05:15:45 AM »

Decision                             44                             G.R. No. 237428

respect to person and to do equal right to the poor and the rich."(109) (Citation omitted)

The Court has pointedly observed in Pimentel v. Hon. Salanga:(110)

    Efforts to attain fair, just and impartial trial and decision, have a natural and alluring appeal. But, we are not licensed to indulge in unjustified assumptions, or make a speculative approach to this ideal. It ill behooves this Court to tar and feather a judge as biased or prejudiced, simply because counsel for a party litigant happens to complain against him. As applied here, respondent judge has not as yet crossed the line that divides partiality and impartiality. He has not thus far stepped to one side of the fulcrum. No act or conduct of his would show arbitrariness or prejudice. Therefore, we are not to assume what respondent judge, not otherwise legally disqualified, will do in a case before him. We have had occasion to rule in a criminal case that a charge made before trial that a party "will not be given a fair, impartial and just hearing" is "premature." Prejudice is not to be presumed. Especially if weighed against a judge's legal obligation under his oath to administer justice "without respect to person and do equal right to the poor and the rich." To disqualify or not to disqualify himself then, as far as respondent judge is concerned, is a matter of conscience.(111) (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)

The Court has consequently counseled that no Judge or Justice who is not legally disqualified should evade the duty and responsibility to sit in the adjudication of any controversy without committing a dereliction of duty for which he or she may be held accountable. Towards that end, the Court has aptly reminded:

    To take or not to take cognizance of a case, does not depend upon the discretion of a judge not legally disqualified to sit in a given case. It is his duty not to sit in its trial and decision if legally disqualified; but if the judge is not disqualified, it is a matter of official duty for him to proceed with the trial and decision of the case. He cannot shirk the responsibility without the risk of being called upon to account for his dereliction.(112)

It is timely to be reminded, too, that the Supreme Court is a collegial judicial body whose every Member has solemnly and individually sworn to dispense and administer justice to every litigant. As a collegial body, the Supreme Court adjudicates without fear or favor. The only things that the Supreme Court collectively focuses its attention to in every case are the merits thereof, and the arguments of the parties on the issues submitted for consideration and deliberation. Only thereby may the solemn individual oath of the Members to do justice be obeyed.

-------
109 Id. at 384-385.
110 128 Phil. 176 (1967).
111 Id. at 182-183.
112 People v. Moreno, 83 Phil. 286, 294 ( 1949); Perfecto v.
    Contreras, 28 Phil. 538 (1914); .Joaquin v. Barretto, 25
    Phil. 281, 287 (1913).

pCloud Premium

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • avatar_3258_1429902436 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • Posts: 45224
  • medal1 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal2 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal3 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal4 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Governmentmedal5 - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • Share Post
xx - Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s - Philippine Government
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #46 on: June 09, 2018, 05:27:45 AM »

Decision                             45                             G.R. No. 237428

 In line with the foregoing, We deem it baseless, not to mention problematic, the respondent's prayer that the matter of inhibition of the six Associate Justices be decided by the remaining members of the Court En Banc. The respondent herself was cognizant that the prevailing rule allows challenged Justices to participate in the deliberations on the matter of their disqualification. Moreover, exclusion from the deliberations due to delicadeza or sense of decency, partakes of a ground apt for a voluntary inhibition. It bears to be reminded that voluntary inhibition, leaves to the sound discretion of the judges concerned whether to sit in a case for other just and valid reasons, with only their conscience as guide.(113) Indeed, the best person to determine the propriety of sitting in a case rests with the magistrate sought to be disqualified. Moreover, to compel the remaining members to decide on the challenged member's fitness to resolve the case is to give them authority to review the propriety of acts of their colleagues, a scenario which can undermine the independence of each of the members of the High Court.

In the En Banc case of Jurado & Co. v. Hongkong Bank,(114) the Court elucidated that a challenge to the competency of a judge may admit two constructions: first, the magistrate decides for himself the question of his competency and when he does so, his decision therein is conclusive and the other Members of the Court have no voice in it; and second, the challenged magistrate sits with the Court and decides the challenge as a collegial body. It was in Jurado that the Court adopted the second view as the proper approach when a challenge is poised on the competency of a sitting magistrate, that is, the Court, together with the challenged magistrate, decides. Jurado further expressly excluded a possible third construction wherein the Court decides the challenge but without the participation of the challenged member on the ground that such construction would place power on a party to halt the proceedings by the simple expedient of challenging a majority of the Justices. The Court sees no reason to deviate from its standing practice of resolving competency challenges as a collegial body without excluding the challenged Member from participating therein.

Accordingly, the Court resolves to DENY respondent's motion to exclude Associate Justices Peralta, Leonardo-De Castro, Jardeleza, Tijam, Bersamin, and Martires in the resolution of the separate motions• for inhibition against the said Associate Justices. Likewise, the Court resolves to DENY the said separate motions for inhibition.

-------
113 Dr. Raul M. Sunico v. Judge Pedro DI. Gutierrez, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2457, February 21, 2017.
114 I Phil. 395 (1902).

pCloud Premium


Share via facebook Share via linkedin Share via pinterest Share via tumblr Share via twitter

xx
Du30’s case against Sereno

Started by islander on Philippine Daily News

5 Replies
446 Views
Last post October 07, 2017, 01:52:13 PM
by islander
xx
Duterte's Interview with Al Jazeera Full Text

Started by MIKELIGALIG.com on LGU Philippines

0 Replies
518 Views
Last post October 17, 2016, 05:59:20 PM
by MIKELIGALIG.com
xx
Philippine Bangsamoro Law Full Text Copy

Started by MIKELIGALIG.com on Philippine Laws

15 Replies
767 Views
Last post January 28, 2015, 04:21:10 PM
by MIKELIGALIG.com
xx
CBCP Pastoral Letter on War on Drugs (Full Text, 05.02.17)

Started by islander on Talk of the Town

4 Replies
535 Views
Last post February 05, 2017, 06:37:31 PM
by islander
xx
FULL TEXT of remarks of DFA chief to the UN tribunal, 30 November 2015

Started by islander on Talk of the Town

12 Replies
667 Views
Last post December 03, 2015, 04:10:51 AM
by islander
 

Booking.com

Latest Topics

Flora and fauna by MIKELIGALIG.com
[Yesterday at 03:28:48 PM]


FIFA 2018 WORLD CUP RUSSIA by islander
[Yesterday at 01:06:54 PM]


AMERICA ISOLATED by balong
[June 15, 2018, 05:11:32 AM]


Misis nakasuot og pinapuok nakig-inom sa lain gihapak og bato sa bana nakuyapan by islander
[June 13, 2018, 12:50:34 PM]


Supercute animals, part 2 by hubag bohol
[June 13, 2018, 06:50:05 AM]


To sleep--perchance to dream... by hubag bohol
[June 13, 2018, 06:44:36 AM]


Do you want to live in a tree house? by hubag bohol
[June 13, 2018, 06:41:26 AM]


Lasting friendships start early, Part 2 by hubag bohol
[June 13, 2018, 06:27:30 AM]


"Let me explain..." by hubag bohol
[June 13, 2018, 06:25:12 AM]


Bugsay's philosophy by hubag bohol
[June 13, 2018, 06:20:20 AM]

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
pCloud Premium
Powered by SMFPacks SEO Pro Mod | Sitemap
Mobile View
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2018, SimplePortal