Jurisprudence 2015

8/15/2019 Jurisprudence 2015

1/560

JANUARY 2015

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 182864, January 12, 2015 ]

EASTERN SI!!ING "INES, IN#., !ETITIONER, VS. $!I%&S INS'RAN#E#OR!., ( &ITS'I S'&ITO&O INS'RAN#E #O., "TD., RES!ONDENTS.

D E # I S I O N

!ERE), J.*

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] of the Decision[2] of the SecondDivision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR C! "o ##$%% dated &1 'anuar( 2))#* +odif(in,the Decision of the Re,ional rial Court .RC/ 0( upholdin, the lia0ilit( of astern Shippin,ines* 3nc .S3/ 0ut a0solvin, Asian er+inals* 3nc .A3/ fro+ lia0ilit( and deletin, theaward of attorne(4s fees

he facts ,athered fro+ the records follow5

6n 27 Dece+0er 2))%* BP389S 3nsurance Corporation .BP389S/ and 9itsui Su+ito+o3nsurance Co+pan( i+ited .9itsui/ filed a Co+plaint[&] 0efore the RC of 9a:ati Cit( a,ainstS3 and A3 to recover actual da+a,es a+ountin, to ;S)%# with le,al interest*attorne(4s fees and costs of suit

3n their co+plaint* BP389S and 9itsui alle,ed that on 2 ?e0ruar( 2))% at @o:oha+a* 'apan*Su+ito+o Corporation shipped on 0oard S34s vessel 98! astern !enus 22 22 coils of various Steel Sheet wei,hin, 1=7*=&% :ilo,ra+s in ,ood order and condition for transportation toand deliver( at the port of 9anila* Philippines in favor of consi,nee Cala+0a Steel Center* 3nc.Cala+0a Steel/ located in Sai+si+* Cala+0a* a,una as evidenced 0( a Bill of adin, with "os S3@9A))1 he declared value of the ship+ent was ;S


2/560

,ood order and condition for transportation to and deliver( at the port of 9anila* Philippines infavor of the sa+e consi,nee Cala+0a Steel as evidenced 0( a Bill of adin, with "osS3S9A))2 he declared value of the ship+ent was ;S


3/560

% Parties li:ewise ad+itted the eistence of the 9arine Car,o Polic( issued 0( the 9itsuiSu+ito+o 3nsurance Co+pan(* i+ited* cop( of which was attached to the Co+plaint asAnne CI

= [A3] ad+itted the eistence and due eecution of the Reuest for Bad 6rder Surve(dated ?e0ruar( 1&* 2))%* attached to the Co+plaint as Anne DI

> 3nsofar as the second cause of action* [S3] ad+itted the eistence and due eecution of the docu+ent [Bill of adin, "os S3S9A))2* 3nvoice with "os 'G-)%-1&2$- "82 and 9arine Car,o Polic( a,ainst all ris:s on the second ship+ent] attached tothe Co+plaint as Annees * ? and GI

7. [A3] ad+itted the eistence of the Bill of adin, to,ether with the 3nvoices and 9arineCar,o Polic( [3t] li:ewise ad+itted 0( [A3] are the urn 6ver Surve( of Bad 6rder Car,oes attached to the Co+plaint as Annees H* H-1 and '[#]

he parties a,reed that the +ro-ura/ u- was whether there was a valid subrogation in favor of BPI/MS and MitsuiI and that the u3an3- u- were, whether the shipments suffered damages, the cause of damage, and the entity liable for reparation of the damages caused.!"

Due to the li+ited factual +atters of the case* the parties were reuired to present their evidencethrou,h affidavits and docu+ents ;pon su0+ission of these evidence* the case was su0+ittedfor resolution[1)]

BP389S and 9itsui* to su0stantiate their clai+s* su0+itted the Affidavits of .1/ 9ario A 9anuel.9anuel/*[11] the Car,o Surve(or of Philippine 'apan 9arine Surve(ors and Sworn 9easurersCorporation who personall( ea+ined and conducted the surve(s on the two ship+entsI .2/

Richatto P Al+eda*[12]

the General 9ana,er of Cala+0a Steel who oversaw and ea+ined thecondition* uantit(* and ualit( of the shipped steel coils* and who thereafter filed for+al noticesand clai+s a,ainst S3 and A3I and .&/ !ir,ilio G ian,co* 'r*[1&] the 9arine Clai+sSupervisor of BP389S who processed the insurance clai+s of Cala+0a Steel Alon, with theAffidavits were the Bills of adin, [1%] coverin, the two ship+ents* 3nvoices*[1=] "otices of oss of Cala+0a Steel*[1>] Su0ro,ation ?or+*[1$] 3nsurance Clai+s*[1#] Surve( Reports*[17] urn 6ver Surve( of Bad 6rder Car,oes[2)] and Reuest for Bad 6rder Surve([21]

S3* in turn* su0+itted the Affidavits of Captain Her+elo 9 duarte* [22] 9ana,er of the6perations Depart+ent of S3* who +onitored in coordination with A3 the dischar,e of thetwo ship+ents* and Rodri,o !ictoria .Rodri,o/*[2&] the Car,o Surve(or of R J R 3ndustrial and

9arine Services* 3nc* who personall( surve(ed the su0Eect car,oes on 0oard the vessel as well asthe +anner the A3 e+plo(ees dischar,ed the coils he docu+ents presented were the Bills of adin,* Secretar(4s Certificate[2%] of PPA* ,rantin, A3 the dut( and privile,e to provide arrastreand stevedorin, services at South Har0or* Port of 9anila* Contract for Car,o Handlin, Services*[2=] Da+a,e Report[2>] and urn 6ver Report +ade 0( Rodri,o [2$] S3 also adopted the Surve(Reports su0+itted 0( BP389S and 9itsui[2#]

astl(* A3 su0+itted the Affidavits of its Bad 6rder 3nspector Ra+on Garcia .Garcia/ [27] and


4/560

Clai+s 6fficer Ra+iro De !era[&)] he docu+ents attached to the su0+issions were the urn6ver Surve(s of Bad Car,o 6rder*[&1] Reuests for Bad 6rder Surve(*[&2] Car,o Gatepasses issued 0( A3*[&&] "otices of oss8Clai+s of Cala+0a Steel[&%] and Contract for Car,o Handlin,Services[&=]

6n 1$ Septe+0er 2))>* RC 9a:ati Cit( rendered a decision findin, 0oth the S3 and A3lia0le for the da+a,es sustained 0( the two ship+ents he dispositive portion reads5

EREFORE* Eud,+ent is here0( rendered in favor of [BP389S and 9itsui] and a,ainst[S3 3nc] and [A3]* Eointl( and severall( orderin, the latter to pa( [BP389S and 9itsui] thefollowin,5

1 Actual da+a,es a+ountin, to ;S)%# plus >K le,al interest per annu+co++encin, fro+ the filin, of this co+plaint* until the sa+e is full( paidI

2 Attorne(4s fees in a su+ euivalent to 2)K of the a+ount clai+edI

3. Costs of suit[&>]

A,,rieved* S3 and A3 filed their respective appeals 0efore the Court of Appeals on 0othuestions of fact and law[&$]

Before the appellate court* S3 ar,ued that the trial court erred when it found BP389S has thecapacit( to sue and when it assu+ed Eurisdiction over the case 3t also uestioned the rulin, on itslia0ilit( since the Surve( Reports indicated that the cause of loss and da+a,e was due to therough handling of #$I%s stevedores during discharge from vessel to shore and during loading operation onto the truc&s. 3t invo:ed the li+itation of lia0ilit( of ;S


5/560

0ut it failed to i+plead the latter as a part( to the present petition his non-inclusion was raised 0( BP389S and 9itsui as an issue[%2] in its Co++ent86pposition[%&] and 9e+orandu+5[%%]

?or reasons :nown onl( to [S3]* it did not i+plead A3 as a part( respondent in this case whenit could have easil( done so Considerin, the nature of the ar,u+ents raised 0( petitioner

pointin, to A3 as solel( responsi0le for the da+a,es sustained 0( the su0Eect ship+ents* it isrespectfull( su0+itted that A3 is an indispensa0le part( in this case Fithout A3 0ein,i+pleaded* the issue of whether A3 is solel( responsi0le for the da+a,es could not 0edeter+ined with finalit( 0( this Honora0le Court A3 certainl( deserves to 0e heard on the issue 0ut it could not defend itself 0ecause it was not i+pleaded 0efore this Court Perhaps* this is thereason wh( [S3] left out A3 in this case so that it could not re0ut while petitioner puts it atfault[%=]

S3 in its Repl([%>] put the 0la+e for the non-eclusion of A3 to BP389S and 9itsui5

[BP389S and 9itsui] clai+ that herein [S3] did not i+plead [A3] as a part( respondent in thePetition for Review on Certiorari it had filed Herein Petitioner su0+its that it is not theo0li,ation of [S3] to i+plead A3 as the sa+e is alread( the loo: out of [BP389S and 9itsui]3f [BP389S and 9itsui] 0elieve that A3 should 0e +ade lia0le* the( should have filed a 9otionfor Reconsideration with the Honora0le Court of Appeals he fact that [BP389S and 9itsui] didnot even lift a fin,er to uestion the decision of the Honora0le Court of Appeals ,oes to showthat [BP389S and 9itsui] are not interested as to whether or not A3 is indeed lia0le [%$]

3t is clear fro+ the echan,e that 0oth [S3] and [BP389S and 9itsui] are aware of the non-inclusion of A3* the arrastre operator* as a part( to this review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals B( 0la+in, each other for the eclusion of A3* [S3] and [BP389S and 9itsui]i+pliedl( a,ree that the a0solution of A3 fro+ lia0ilit( is final and 0e(ond review Clearl(*[S3] is the conseuential loser 3t alone +ust 0ear the proven lia0ilit( for the loss of the

ship+ent 3t cannot shift the 0la+e to A3* the arrastre operator* which has 0een cleared 0( theCourt of Appeals "either can it ar,ue that the consi,nee should 0ear the loss

hus confined* we ,o to the +erits of the ar,u+ents of S3

First Issue: Liability of ESLI

S3 0ases of its non-lia0ilit( on the surve( reports prepared 0( BP389S and 9itsui4s witness9anuel which found that the cause of da+a,e was the rou,h handlin, on the ship+ent 0( thestevedores of A3 durin, the dischar,in, operations [%#] However* 9anuel does not a0solve S3of lia0ilit( he witness in fact includes S3 in the findin,s of ne,li,ence Para,raphs & and 11

of the affidavit of witness 9anuel attri0ute fault to 0oth S3 and A3

& he vessel 9! ASR" !";S ! 22-S carr(in, the said ship+ent of 22 coils of various steel sheets arrived at the port of 9anila and dischar,ed the said ship+ent on or a0out 11?e0ruar( 2))% to the arrastre operator [A3] 3 personall( noticed that the 22 coils were rou,hl(handled durin, their dischar,in, fro+ the vessel to the pier of [A3] and even durin, the loadin,operations of these coils fro+ the pier to the truc:s that will transport the coils to theconsi,nees4s warehouse Durn 37- aor-a o+-ra3on, 37- -9+/oy-- an or:/3


6/560

o+-ra3or o [ES"I] an [ATI] ;-r- -ry n-/-n3 n 37- 7an/n o 37- u


7/560

3n +ariti+e transportation* a 0ill of ladin, is issued 0( a co++on carrier as a contract* receiptand s(+0ol of the ,oods covered 0( it 3f it has no notation of an( defect or da+a,e in the ,oods*it is considered as a clean 0ill of ladin, A clean 0ill of ladin, constitutes prima facie evidenceof the receipt 0( the carrier of the ,oods as therein descri0ed[=&]

Based on the 0ills of ladin, issued* it is undisputed that S3 received the two ship+ents of coilsfro+ shipper Su+ito+o Corporation in ,ood condition at the ports of @o:oha+a and ashi+a*'apan However* upon arrival at the port of 9anila* so+e coils fro+ the two ship+ents were partl( dented and cru+pled as evidenced 0( the urn 6ver Surve( of Bad 6rder Car,oes "o>$7#2 dated 1& ?e0ruar( 2))%[=%] and urn 6ver Surve( of Bad 6rder Car,oes "os >#&>& [==] and>#&>=[=>] 0oth dated 2% 9a( 2))% si,ned 0( S34s representatives* a certain a0anao andRodri,o to,ether with A34s representative Garcia Accordin, to urn 6ver Surve( of Bad 6rder Car,oes "o >$7#2* four coils and one s:id were partl( dented and cru+pled prior to turnover 0(S3 to A34s possession while a total of eleven coils were partl( dented and cru+pled prior toturnover 0ased on urn 6ver Surve( Bad 6rder Car,oes "os >#&>& and >#&>=

Cala+0a Steel reuested for a re-ea+ination of the da+a,es sustained 0( the two ship+entsBased on the Reuests for Bad 6rder Surve( "os =#2>$ [=$] and =#2=%[=#] coverin, the firstship+ent dated 1& and 1$ ?e0ruar( 2))%* four coils were da+a,ed prior to turnover he secondReuest for Bad 6rder Surve( "o =#>=#[=7] dated 2= 9a( 2))% also affir+ed the earlier findin,sthat eleven coils on the second ship+ent were da+a,ed prior to turnover

3n #sian $erminals, Inc., v. Philam Insurance Co., Inc.*[>)] the Court 0ased its rulin, on lia0ilit(on the Bad 6rder Car,o and urn 6ver of Bad 6rder he Receipt 0ore a notation B6 not (ett8over to A3* while the Surve( stated that the said steel case was not opened at the ti+e of surve( and was accepted 0( the arrastre in ,ood order Based on these docu+ents* pac:a,es inthe #sian $erminals, Inc. case were found da+a,ed while in the custod( of the carrier FestwindShippin, Corporation

9ere proof of deliver( of the ,oods in ,ood order to a co++on carrier and of their arrival in 0adorder at their destination constitutes a prima facie case of fault or ne,li,ence a,ainst the carrier3f no adeuate eplanation is ,iven as to how the deterioration* loss* or destruction of the ,oodshappened* the transporter shall 0e held responsi0le[>1] ?ro+ the fore,oin,* the fault isattri0uta0le to S3 Fhile no lon,er an issue* it +a( 0e nonetheless state that A3 was correctl(a0solved of lia0ilit( for the da+a,e

Second Issue: Limitation of Liability

S3 assi,ns as error the appellate court4s findin, and reasonin, that the pac:a,e li+itationunder the C6GSA[>2] is inapplica0le even if the 0ills of ladin, coverin, the ship+ents onl( +adereference to the correspondin, invoices "oticea0l(* the invoices specified a+on, others thewei,ht* uantit(* description and value of the car,oes* and 0ore the notation ?rei,ht Prepaidand As Arran,ed[>&] S3 ar,ues that the value of the car,oes was not incorporated in the 0illsof ladin,[>%] and that there was no evidence that the shipper had presented to the carrier in writin, prior to the loadin, of the actual value of the car,o* and* that there was a no pa(+ent of correspondin, frei,ht[>=] ?inall(* despite the fact that S3 ad+its the eistence of the invoices*


8/560


9/560

car,o in reference to the 0ills of ladin, do not prove the fact that the shipper co+plied with thereuire+ents +andated 0( the C6GSA 3t contends that there +ust 0e an insertion of thisdeclaration in the 0ill of ladin, itself to fall outside the statutor( li+itation of lia0ilit(

S3 asserts that the appellate court erred when it ruled that there was co+pliance with the

declaration reuire+ent even if the value of the ship+ent and fact of pa(+ent were indicated onthe invoice and not on the 0ill of ladin, itself

here is no uestion a0out the declaration of the nature* wei,ht and description of the ,oods onthe first 0ill of ladin,

$he bills of lading represent the formal e'pression of the parties% rights, duties and obligations.

It is the best evidence of the intention of the parties which is to be deciphered from the languageused in the contract, not from the unilateral post facto assertions of one of the parties, or of third

parties who are strangers to the contract. *3" $hus, when the terms of an agreement have been

reduced to writing, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between

the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. *+"

As to the non-declaration of the value of the ,oods on the second 0ill of ladin,* we see no error on the part of the appellate court when it ruled that there was a co+pliance of the reuire+ent provided 0( C6GSA he declaration reuire+ent does not reuire that all the details +ust 0ewritten down on the ver( 0ill of ladin, itself 3t +ust 0e e+phasiMed that all the needed detailsare in the invoice* which contains the ite+iMed list of ,oods shipped to a 0u(er* statin,uantities* prices* shippin, char,es* and other details which +a( contain nu+erous sheets[$%]

Co+pliance can 0e attained 0( incorporatin, the invoice* 0( wa( of reference* to the 0ill of ladin, provided that the for+er containin, the description of the nature* value and8or pa(+ent of frei,ht char,es is as in this case dul( ad+itted as evidence

3n #nsworth $ransport International %&hils.', Inc. v. (ourt of )ppeals ,[=5] the Court held thatthe insertion of an invoice nu+0er does not in itself sufficientl( and convincin,l( show that petitioner had :nowled,e of the value of the car,o However* the sa+e interpretation does notsuarel( appl( if the carrier had 0een advised of the value of the ,oods as evidenced 0( theinvoice and pa(+ent of correspondin, frei,ht char,es 3t would 0e unfair for S3 to invo:e theli+itation under C6GSA when the shipper in fact paid the frei,ht char,es 0ased on the value of the ,oods 3n )dams E*press (ompany v. (roninger,[=6] it was said5 either is it conformableto plain principles of (ustice that a shipper may understate the value of his property for the

purpose of reducing the rate, and then recover a larger value in case of loss. or does a

limitation based upon an agreed value for the purpose of ad(usting the rate conflict with any sound principle of public policy. Conversel(* 0ut for the sa+e reason* it is unEust for S3 toinvo:e the li+itation when it is infor+ed that the shipper paid the frei,ht char,es correspondin,to the value of the ,oods

Also* S3 ad+itted the eistence and due eecution of the Bills of adin, and the 3nvoicecontainin, the nature and value of the ,oods on the second ship+ent As written in the Pre-rial6rder*[$$] the parties* includin, S3* ad+itted the ->3-n- an u- ->-u3on o 37- 3;o $//


10/560

o "an[$#] to,ether with the Ino- on 37- -on 7+9-n3 ;37 No. ?JGE@04@12=@NT%?E2[$7] dated 12 9a( 2))% 6n the first ship+ent* ES"I a933- 37- ->3-n- o 37-Ino- ;37 No. ?JGE@01228@NT%?E[#)] dated 2 ?e0ruar( 2))%

he effect of ad+ission of the ,enuineness and due eecution of a docu+ent +eans that the part(

whose si,nature it 0ears ad+its that he voluntaril( si,ned the docu+ent or it was si,ned 0(another for hi+ and with his authorit([#1]

A review of the 0ill of ladin,s and invoice on the second ship+ent indicates that the shipper declared the nature and value of the ,oods with the correspondin, pa(+ent of the frei,ht on the 0ills of ladin, ?urther* under the caption description of pac:a,es and ,oods* it states that thedescription of the ,oods to 0e transported as various steel sheet in coil with a ,ross wei,ht of &*=&2 :ilo,ra+s .#7=1) 9&/ 6n the other hand* the a+ount of the ,oods is referred in theinvoice* the due eecution and ,enuineness of which has alread( 0een ad+itted 0( S3* is;S*7)>&= as frei,ht on 0oard with pa(+ent of ocean frei,ht of ;S)> andinsurance pre+iu+ of ;S


11/560

admission re7uires no proof. 2*"

3t is inconceiva0le that a shippin, co+pan( with +ariti+e eperience and resource li:e the S3will ad+it the eistence of a +ariti+e docu+ent li:e an invoice even if it has no :nowled,e of its contents or without havin, an( cop( thereof

S3 also asserts that the notation ?rei,ht Prepaid and As Arran,ed* does not prove thatthere was an actual declaration +ade in writin, of the pa(+ent of frei,ht as reuired 0( C6GSAS3 did not as it could not den( pa(+ent of frei,ht in the a+ount indicated in the docu+ents3ndeed* the earlier discussions on S34s ad+ission of the eistence and due eecution of theinvoices* cover and disprove the ar,u+ent re,ardin, actual declaration of pa(+ent he 0ills of ladin, 0ore a notation on the +anner of pa(+ent which was ?rei,ht Prepaid and AsArran,ed while the invoices indicated the a+ount eactl( paid 0( the shipper to S3

EREFORE* we DENB the Petition for Review on Certiorari. he Decision dated &1'anuar( 2))# and Resolution dated = 9a( 2))# of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals

in CA-GR C! "o ##$%% are here0( AFFIR&ED.SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.4., :Chairman;, and 6eyes,>> 44 * concur

N Per Raffle dated 21 April 2)1%

NN Per Raffle dated 1 Dece+0er 2)1%

[1] Rule on Civil Procedure* Rule %=

[2] Penned 0( Associate 'ustice stela 9 Perlas-Berna0e .now a +e+0er of this Court/ withAssociate 'ustices Portia AliOo-Ho+achuelos and ucas P Bersa+in .also a +e+0er of thisCourt/ concurrin, 6ollo* pp %&-=)

[&] Co+plaint Records* pp 1-=

[%] 6ollo* pp 1$)-1$1

[=] Answer of A3 Records* pp 2&-2$

[>] Answer of S3 3d at -%$

[$] 9ediator4s Report 3d at 71

[#] As e+0odied in the Pre-rial 6rder 3d at 7#-77

[7] 3d at 77


12/560

[1)] 3d

[11] 3d at 1%=-1%$

[12]

3d at 1)2-1)%[1&] 3d at 127-1&1

[1%] 3d at 1)= and 11>

[1=] 3d at 1)>-11) and 11$-12&

[1>] 3d at 12%-12$

[1$] 3d at 12#

[1#] 3d at 1&&-1&> and 1%)-1%&

[17] 3d at 1%7-1=%

[2)] 3d at 1=$-1=7

[21] 3d at 1%#

[22] Co+pliance89anifestation 3d at 1>7-1$1

[2&] 3d at 1$&-1$>

[2%] 3d at 1$#-1$7

[2=] 3d at 1#)-2)=

[2>] 3d at 2)$ and 21)-21)-A

[2$] 3d at 2)# and 21)-212

[2#] 3d at 1%7-1=%

[27] 3d at 21=-21$

[&)] 3d at 22%-22$

[&1] 3d at 21# and 221

[&2] 3d at 217-22) and 22&


13/560

[&&] 3d at 22#-2&2

[&%] 3d at 2&& and 2$&

[&=]

3d at 2&=-2>1[&>] 6ollo* pp 1&1-1&$

[&$] Records* pp 2#%-2#= and 2#$

[] Appellant4s Brief of S3 6ollo* pp $1-1)>

[&7] Appellant4s Brief of A3 3d at 1)$-1&)

[%)] 3d at %&-=)

[%1] 3d at %7-=)

[%2] 3d at &)2

[%&] 3d at &))-&)$

[%%] 3d at %)1-%1%

[%=] 3d at &)2

[%>] 3d at &)#-&2>

[%$] 3d at &12

[%#] Petition for Review on Certiorari 3d at 1=

[%7] Records* pp 1%=-1%>

[=)] 3d at 1$&-1$>

[=1] )rt. -/0 . Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only?:); @lood, storm, earth7ua&e, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity8

:3; #ct of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil8

:+; #ct or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods8:; $he character of the goods or defects in the pac&ing or in the containers8 and

:-; 0rder or act of competent public authority.[=2] #sian $erminals, Inc. v. Philam Insurance Co., Inc. :ow Chartis Philippines Insurance, Inc.;, GR "o 1#11>&* 1#12>2 and 1#1&17* 2% 'ul( 2)1& citin, Philippines @irst Insurance


14/560

Co., Inc. v. Aallem Phils. Shipping, Inc.* GR "o 1>=>%$* 2> 9arch 2))7* =#2 SCRA %=$* %>>-%>$

[=&] = and was +ade applica0le to all contracts for the carria,e of ,oods 0(sea to and fro+ Philippine ports in forei,n trade provided that it would 0ut 0e construed as arepealin, law of the Code of Co++erce

[>&] Petition for Review on Certiorari 6ollo* pp &)-&1

[>%] 3d at &1

[>=] 3d at &&

[>>] 3d at &%

[>$] "ew Civil Code* Article 1$=&

[>#] )rt. -11 . In all matters not regulated by this Code, the rights and obligations of commoncarriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws.

[>7] "ew Civil Code* Article 1$%7


15/560

[$)] "ew Civil Code* Art 1$=)

[$1] Bill of adin, Records* p 1)=

[$2]

Chua 1aw v. Chua, =$% Phil >%)* >=$ .2))#/ citin, #rwood Induestries, Inc. v. =.M.Consun(i, Inc.* %%2 Phil 2)&* 212 .2))2/I Ferbon v. Palad, =2# Phil 1&)* 1%2 .2))>/

[$&] Rules of Court* Rule 1&)* Sec 7

[$%] Glossar( of Shippin, er+s* ;nited States of A+erica* Depart+ent of ransportation*9ariti+e Ad+inistration* http588www+araddot,ov8docu+ents8Glossar(-finalpdf .visited &April 2)1%/

[$=] GR "o 1>>2=)* 2> 'ul( 2)1)* >2= SCRA &=$* &>#

[$>]

22> ;S %71* && SCt 1%#* =$ d &1% .171&/I as reiterated in F. G. Feacoc& Company v. Macondray D Co. Inc., %2 Phil 2)=* 21) .1721/ which ruled that* A li+itation of lia0ilit( 0asedupon an a,reed value to o0tain a lower rate does not conflict with an( sound principle of pu0lic polic(I and it is not confor+a0le to plain principles of Eustice that a shipper +a( understate valuein order to reduce the rate and then recover a lar,er value in case of loss [ #dams G'press Co. v.Croninger 22> ;S %71* %72I 6eid v. @argo .1&) CCA* 2#=/I 4ennings v. Smith .%= CCA*2%7/I 1eorge . Pierce Co. v. Aells, @argo and Co. .2&> ;S* 2$#/I Aells, @argo D Co. v. eiman5Marcus Co. 22$ ;S* %>7]

[$$] Records* pp 7#-77

[$#] 3d at 7 and 1&

[$7] 3d at 1%

[#)] 3d at 1)

[#1] Permanent Savings and 7

[#=] =2) Phil 7#2 .2))>/

[#>] 3d at 771I Constantino v. Feirs of Constantino, 4r., GR "o 1#1=)#* 2 6cto0er 2)1&

[#$] SCC Chemicals Corporation v. Court of #ppeals, %)= Phil =1%* =22-=2& .2))1/


16/560

FIRST DIVISION


17/560

[ G.R. No. 156CC5, January 12, 2015 ]

R'$EN &ANA"ANG, #AR"OS &ANA"ANG, #ON#E!#ION GON)A"ESAND "'IS &ANA"ANG, !ETITIONERS, VS. $IENVENIDO AND

&ER#EDES $A#ANI, RES!ONDENTS.D E # I S I O N

$ERSA&IN, J.*

In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) shall decidethe appeal of the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in unlaful detainer orforci!le entr" cases on the !asis of the entire record of the proceedings had in thecourt of origin and such memoranda and#or !riefs as ma" !e re$uired !" the RTC.

There is no trial de novo of the case.

The Case

The petitioners assail the decision promulgated on %cto!er &', in C*+.R. -/o. 0'1&2,&4 here!" the Court of *ppeals (C*) re5ersed and set aside the decisionof the RTC, 6ranch 12, in uagua, ampanga, and reinstated the judgment renderedon *ugust 3&, !" the MTC of uagua, ampanga dismissing their complaint forunlaful detainer and the respondents counterclaim. The" also here!" assail theresolution promulgated on 8anuar" 1, 3 den"ing their motion forreconsideration.4

Antecedents

etitioners Ru!en Manalang, *mado Manalang, Carlos Manalang, Concepcion M.on9ales, :adislao Manalang and :uis Manalang ere the co+oners of :ot /o 130ith an area of 2&1 s$uare meters of the uagua Cadastre, and declared fortaxation purposes in the name of Tomasa 6. arcia. The land as co5ered !"appro5ed sur5e" plan *p+3+1&;1. *djacent to :ot 130 as the respondents :ot/o. 13; co5ered !" %riginal Certin5ironmentand /atural Resources (=>/R) con


18/560

%n -eptem!er &7, &22', the MTC (6ranch ) dismissed Ci5il Case /o. 332 for lac@of jurisdiction !ased on its /R+ =>/R.

%n -eptem!er &2, &,&4 the RTC rendered its judgment here!" it re5ersed and

set aside the MTCs decision of *ugust 3&, , o!ser5ing that the respondentshad encroached on the petitioners propert" !ased on the court+ordered relocationsur5e", the reports !" >ngr. :impin, and his testimon"A&&4 that the respondentscould not rel" on their %CT /o. /+&07&, considering that although their titleco5ered onl" 1'& s$uare meters, the relocation sur5e" re5ealed that the" hadoccupied also ;0 s$uare meters of the petitioners :ot /o. 130A&4 that thepetitioners did not su!stantiate their claims for reasona!le compensation,attorne"s fees and litigation expensesA and that, ne5ertheless, after it had !een


19/560

esta!lished that the respondents had encroached upon and used a portion of thepetitioners propert", the latter ere entitled to &,.#month as reasona!lecompensation from the F>R->= and ->T *-I=>, andthe decisions of the MTC of uagua, ampanga, 6ranches & and , are R>I/-T*T>=.

/o pronouncement as to costs.

-% %R=>R>=.

The C* concluded that the RTC, !" ordering the relocation and 5eri


20/560

"ssues

Dence, this appeal.

The petitioners contend that the RTC had authorit" to recei5e additional e5idence on

appeal in an ejectment case !ecause it as not a!solutel" con


21/560

Regiona Tria Court 'hich sha decide the sa$e on the &asis of the entire

record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such $e$oranda

and(or &riefs as $a) &e su&$itted &) the parties or re*uired &) the

Regiona Tria Court+ (7a)

Dence, the RTC 5iolated the foregoing rule !" ordering the conduct of the relocationand 5eri


22/560

a complaint !efore the 6aranga" Council of -an 8uan, uagua, ampanga againstdefendants regarding the encroached portion. * preliminar" relocation sur5e" asconducted !" the :ands Management -ector of the =>/R and it as found thatindeed, defendants encroached into the parcel of land !elonging to plaintiKs. This


23/560

case. The dismissal as correct. It is fundamental that the allegations of thecomplaint and the character of the relief sought !" the complaint determine thenature of the action and the court that has jurisdiction o5er the action. '4 To !eclear, unlaful detainer is an action


24/560

04 Id. at 2'.

74 The residing 8udge of 6ranch later 5oluntar" inhi!ited herself from the case,hich as then re+assigned to 6ranch &.

'4 Rollo pp. 22+&;.

24 Id. at &1.

&4 Id. at &0+&&&.

&&4 Id. at &2.

&4 Id. at &&.

&34 Id. at &&&.

&14 Id. at &&.

&;4 -upra note &.

&04 .R. /o. &1'', 8anuar" &0, &227, 00 -CR* 1.

&74 /o. :+01;, -eptem!er &', &207, & -CR* &10.

&'4 .R. /o. &&0&2, /o5em!er &0, &22;, ; -CR* &'.

&24 Rollo, pp. 0&+0;.

4 Id. at 3.

&4 Id. at 1.

4 Id. at ;.

34

Id. at 0.14 Id. at 33.

;4 Id. at &&'+&&.

04 (bellera v. Court of (ppeals, .R. /o. &71', Ee!ruar" ', , 30 -CR* 1';,12&.


25/560

74 C* rollo, pp. 3&+33.

'4 Ten )orty Realty and -evelopment Corp. v. Cruz, .R. /o. &;&&, -eptem!er &,3, 1& -CR* 1'1, 123.

24 /state of Soledad 0anantan v. Somera, .R. /o. &1;'07, *pril 7, 2, ;'1 -CR*'&, ''+'2.

34 Sarmiento v. Court of (ppeals, .R. /o. &&0&2, /o5em!er &0, &22;, ; -CR*&', &&0.

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 1=6508, January 12, 2015 ]

SAINT &ARB #R'SADE TO A""EVIATE !OVERTB OF $RETREN

FO'NDATION, IN#., !ETITIONER, VS. ON. TEODORO T. RIE",A#TING !RESIDING J'DGE, REGIONA" TRIA" #O'RT,

NATIONA" #A!ITA" J'DI#IA" REGION, $RAN# 85, 'E)ON#ITB, RES!ONDENT.

'NIVERSITB OF TE !I"I!!INES, INTERVENOR.

D E # I S I O N


26/560

$ERSA&IN, J.*

* petition for the judicial reconstitution of a Torrens title must strictl" compl" iththe re$uirements prescri!ed in Repu!lic *ct /o. 0A &4 otherise, the petition should!e dismissed.

This case is a direct resort to the Court !" petition for certiorari and mandamus. Thepetitioner applied for the judicial reconstitution of %riginal Certi$uall" assailed is the ensuing denial of its motionfor reconsideration through the order dated Ee!ruar" ;, 7.

The antecedents follo.

%n %cto!er ', 1, the petitioner claimed in its petition for reconstitution that theoriginal cop" of %CT /o. &02 had !een !urnt and lost in the =.

%n %cto!er &&, 0, the petitioner mo5ed for reconsideration of the dismissal, 34

attaching the folloing documents to support its petition for reconstitution, namel"(&) the cop" of the original application for registration dated 8anuar" 7, &2;;A ()the notice of initial hearing dated 8une 3, &2;;A (3) the letter of transmittal to theCourt of Eirst Instance in Oue9on Cit"A (1) the cop" of the -panish Testimonial Title/o. 30&;1 dated March ;, &277 in the name of >ladio Ti!urcioA (;) the cop" of

Tax *ssessment /o. &13'A and (0) the appro5ed lan -?=+371;7.

%n Ee!ruar" ;, 7, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration for lac@ of an"cogent or justi


27/560

Rule 7, -ection ', of the Re5ised Rules of CourtAH;4 that Gin


28/560

of the hilippines (&0 hil. 177), hich 5ested title in the B, and in Ca4ero v.3niversity of the hilippines (137 -CR* 03)A and that the =eed of Transfer andCon5e"ance dated /o5em!er 0, &2; executed !" Ti!urcio in fa5or of -t. Mar"Fillage *ssociation, Inc. as not a !asis for the judicial reconstitution of titleaccepted under -ection of Repu!lic *ct /o. 0.

In its memorandum, the petitioner indicates that the RTC gra5el" a!used itsdiscretion amounting to lac@ or excess of its jurisdiction in dismissing its petition forreconstitution on the !asis of the recommendation of the :R* and the opposition of the Repu!lic and the B despite ha5ing initiall" gi5en due course to the petition forreconstitution. It urges that the dismissal should !e o5erturned !ecause it as notgi5en a chance to comment on the recommendation of the :R*, or to contro5ert theoppositions


29/560

title. 2ence, the RTC neither lac:ed nor e5ceeded its authority in acting on and

dismissing the petition. ?or did respondent *udge gravely abuse his discretion

amounting to lac: or e5cess of 8urisdiction considering that the petition for

reconstitution involved land already registered in the name of the 3, as con%rmed

by the R(. Instead, it would have been contrary to law had respondent *udge dealt

with and granted the petition for 8udicial reconstitution of title of the petitioner.

-econdl", the petitioner did not present the duplicate or certi


30/560

c6 A certi%ed cop) of the certi%cate of tite, pre3ious) issued &) the

register of deeds or &) a ega custodian thereof

d6 The deed of transfer or other docu$ent, on %e in the registr) of

deeds, containing the description of the propert), or an authenticatedcop) thereof, sho'ing that its origina had &een registered, and pursuant

to 'hich the ost or destro)ed transfer certi%cate of tite 'as issued

e6 A docu$ent, on %e in the registr) of deeds, &) 'hich the propert), the

description of 'hich is gi3en in said docu$ent, is $ortgaged, eased or

encu$&ered, or an authenticated cop) of said docu$ent sho'ing that its

origina had &een registered and

f6 An) other docu$ent 'hich, in the #udg$ent of the court, is su:cientand proper &asis for reconstituting the ost or destro)ed certi%cate of

tite+

Thirdl", ith the $uestioned orders of the RTC ha5ing


31/560

comprising its campus has long !een settled under the la. *ccordingl", thedismissal of the petition for judicial reconstitution !" respondent 8udge onl"safeguarded the Bs registered onership. In so doing, respondent 8udge actuall"heeded the clear arnings to the loer courts and the :a rofession in generalagainst mounting or a!etting an" attac@ against such onership. %ne such arning

as that in Cañero v !niversity of the "hilippines,14 as follos

?e strongl" admonish courts and unscrupulous la"ers to stop entertainingspurious cases see@ing further to assail respondent Bs title. These cases open thedissolute a5enues of graft to unscrupulous land+gra!!ers ho pre" li@e 5ulturesupon the campus of respondent B. 6" such actions, the" ittingl" or unittingl"aid the huc@sters ho ant to earn a $uic@ !uc@ !" misleading the gulli!le to !u"the hilippine counterpart of the pro5er!ial :ondon 6ridge. It is ell past time forcourts and la"ers to cease asting their time and resources on these orthlesscauses and ta@e judicial notice of the fact that respondent Bs title had alread"!een 5alidated countless times !" this Court. *n" ruling de5iating from suchdoctrine is to !e 5ieed as a deli!erate intent to sa!otage the rule of la and illno longer !e countenanced.;4

-.R./R., the Court "S"SS.S the petition for certiorari and mandamus forlac@ of meritA and R.RS the petitioner to pa" the costs of suit.

S R.R.+

Sereno, C.*., eonardo&-e Castro, erez , and erlas&'ernabe, **., concur.

&4 *n *ct ro5iding * -pecial rocedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certi


32/560

24 Id. at &30+&;&.

&4 Id. at &;3.

&&4 Id. at &;;+&;'.

&4 Id. at 1&.

&34 :isting the cases as Tiburcio v. .2.2.C., &0 hil 177 (&2;2)A Aalvez v. Tuason,/o. :+&;011, Ee!ruar" 2, &201, & -CR* 311A eoples 2omesite and 2ousingCorporation v. 0encias, /o. :+1&&1, *ugust &0, &207, -CR* &3&A Barsity 2ills,Inc. v. 0ariano, /o. :+3;10, 8une 3, &22', &03 -CR* &3A 2eirs of (ntonio ael v.Court of (ppeals, .R. /o. &33;17, /o5em!er &&, 3, 1&; -CR* 1;&A Ca4ero v.3niversity of the hilippines, .R. /o. &;03', -eptem!er ', 1, 137 -CR* 03.

&14 Rollo, pp. 7;+70 (Memorandum of Repu!lic)A pp. &2+&2& (Memorandum ofB).

&;4 Id. at 77+2A &2&+&2.

&04 Id. at '&+'1A &'2+&2.

&74 Id. at 32+3&&.

&'4 Id. at 3&+3&&.

&24 -ection &, Rule 0; of the Rules of Court.

4 -e los Santos v. Court of (ppeals, .R. /o. &0212', =ecem!er &&, ', ;73-CR* 02&, 7.

&4 Sec+ 12+


33/560

occupants or persons in possession of the propert), of the o'ners of the

ad#oining properties and a persons 'ho $a) ha3e an) interest in the

propert) f6 a detaied description of the encu$&rances, if an), a=ecting

the propert) and g6 a state$ent that no deeds or other instru$ents

a=ecting the propert) ha3e &een presented for registration, or, if there &e

an), the registration thereof has not &een acco$pished, as )et+ A thedocu$ents, or authenticated copies thereof, to &e introduced in e3idence

in support of the petition for reconstitution sha &e attached thereto and

%ed 'ith the sa$e4 cusi3e) fro$ sources enu$erated in section 2f6 of ;f6 of this

Act, the petition sha &e further &e acco$panied 'ith a pan and technica

description of the propert) du) appro3ed &) the Chief of the ?enera @and

Registration :ce, or 'ith a certi%ed cop) of the description taen fro$ a

prior certi%cate of tite co3ering the sa$e propert)+

4 Rigor v. Tenth -ivision of the Court of (ppeals, .R. /o. &071, 8une 3, 0,121 -CR* 37;, 37'+372.

34 'a4ez, *r. v. Concepcion, .R. /o. &;2;', *ugust 2, &, 072 -CR 37, ;.

14 .R. /o. &;03', -eptem!er ', 1, 137 -CR* 03.

;4 Id. at 010+017.


34/560

TIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 1=816C, January 12, 2015 ]NFF IND'STRIA" #OR!ORATION, !ETITIONER, VS. G ( " ASSO#IATED

$RO?ERAGE AND%OR GERARDO TRINIDAD, RES!ONDENTS.

DE#ISION

!ERA"TA, J.*

his is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule %= of the Rules of Court see:in, to reverseand set aside the Decision[1] dated "ove+0er 22* 2))> and the 6rder [2] dated 9a( 22* 2))$*

respectivel(* of the Court of Appeals .C#/* in the civil case entitled @@ Industrial Corporationv. 1 D < #ssociated Bro&erage, Inc. and/or 1erardo $rinidad * doc:eted as CA-GR C! "o#=)>)

he facts follow

Petitioner "?? 3ndustrial Corporation is en,a,ed in the 0usiness of +anufacturin, 0ul: 0a,s*while respondent G J Associated Bro:era,e* 3nc .respondent company/ is a+on, its


35/560

custo+ers[&] Respondent Gerardo rinidad is the ,eneral +ana,er of respondent co+pan([%]

Accordin, to petitioner* on 'ul( 2)* 1777* respondent co+pan( ordered one thousand .1*)))/ pieces of 0ul: 0a,s fro+ petitioner* at hree Hundred i,ht( Pesos .P)))/ per piece* or atotal purchase price of hree Hundred i,ht( housand Pesos .P)*)))))/* pa(a0le within

thirt( .&)/ da(s fro+ deliver(* covered 0( Purchase 6rder "o 7$-))2 dated 'ul( 27* 1777[=]

3nthe said Purchase 6rder* an instruction was +ade that the 0ul: 0a,s were for i++ediate deliver(to 1 D < #ssociated Bro&erage, Inc., c/o Fi5Cement Corporation, oragaray, Bulacan[>]

Shortl( thereafter* respondent co+pan( ordered an additional one thousand .1*)))/ pieces of 0ul: 0a,s* thus for a total of two thousand .2*)))/ pieces* at the sa+e price per 0a, and with thesa+e ter+s of pa(+ent as well as the sa+e instructions for deliver([$]

Accordin,l(* petitioner +ade deliveries of the 0ul: 0a,s to Hi-Ce+ent on the followin, datesand evidenced 0( the followin, docu+ents* to wit5

'n3 D-/-r- Da3- o D-/-ry A9oun3 D-/-ry R--+3 Sa/- Ino-

%)) 'ul( &)* 1777 P1=2*))))) "o )22> dated'ul( &)* 1777

"o %11& dated'ul( &)* 1777

1*))) Au,ust %* 1777 P)*))))) "o )227 datedAu,ust %* 1777

"o %12) datedAu,ust %* 1777

>)) Au,ust >* 1777 P22#*))))) "o )2&1 datedAu,ust >* 1777

"o %122 datedAu,ust >* 1777[#]

2*))) P$>)*)))))

Petitioner alle,ed that the afore+entioned deliveries were dul( ac:nowled,ed 0( representativesof respondent co+pan([7] Petitioner also averred that all the deliver( receipts were ru00er

sta+ped* dated and si,ned 0( the securit( ,uard-on-dut(* as well as other representatives of respondent co+pan([1)] All deliveries +ade were li:ewise covered 0( sales invoices[11] Based onthe said invoices* the total sales price is Seven Hundred Sit( housand Pesos .P$>)*)))))/ [12]

All the sales invoices were dul( served upon* and received 0( respondent co+pan(4srepresentative* one 9arian Ga0a([1&]

6n the other hand* respondents alle,ed that on 'ul( 2)* 1777* it ordered fro+ petitioner* 0( wa(of Purchase 6rder "o 7$-))2* one thousand .1*)))/ pieces of 0ul: 0a,s fro+ petitioner at a unit price of .P)))/ per piece for a total purchase price of hree Hundred i,ht( housand Pesos.P)*)))))/[1%] he said 0ul: 0a,s were to 0e used 0( respondent co+pan( for the purpose of haulin, ce+ent fro+ Hi-Ce+ent Corporation at "orMa,ara(* Bulacan* to a da+ proEect in

Casecnan* "ueva ciEa* the respondent co+pan( havin, 0een desi,nated as one of the +an(haulers at the Hi-Ce+ent Corporation[1=] 6n 'ul( 2>* 1777* respondent co+pan( for+aliMed itsoffer throu,h a letter containin, the sa+e ter+s as the Purchase 6rder and providin, for other details re,ardin, the purchase[1>]

Accordin, to respondents* the Purchase 6rder specificall( provides that the 0ul: 0a,s were to 0edelivered at Hi-Ce+ent Corporation to 9r Raul A+0rosio* respondent co+pan(4s chec:er andauthoriMed representative assi,ned thereat[1$] Su0seuentl(* however* the ordered 0ul: 0a,s were


36/560

not delivered to respondent co+pan(* the sa+e not havin, 0een received 0( the authoriMedrepresentative in confor+it( with the ter+s of the Purchase 6rder[1#]

9eanwhile* thirt( .&)/ da(s elapsed fro+ the ti+e the last alle,ed deliver( was +ade 0ut no pa(+ent was effected 0( respondent co+pan([17] his pro+pted petitioner to send a de+and

letter dated 6cto0er 2$* 1777 to respondent co+pan([2)]

As respondent co+pan( failed torespond to the de+and letter* petitioner followed up its clai+ fro+ the for+er throu,h a series of telephone calls[21] A,ain* since no concrete answer was provided 0( respondent co+pan(* petitioner sent another de+and letter dated "ove+0er 2&* 1777I and finall(* a third de+and letter dated 6cto0er 2* 2))1[22] As the de+ands re+ained unheeded* petitioner filed a co+plaint for su+ of +one( a,ainst respondents on Dece+0er 17* 2))1[2&]

As no settle+ent was reached durin, the pre-trial sta,e* trial proceeded 6n 'anuar( 2=* 2))=*the Re,ional rial Court . 6$C / rendered its decision in favor of petitioner he fallo of theDecision provides5PRSC3"D3"G ?R69 H ?6RG63"G C6"S3DRA36"S* Eud,+ent is here0( rendered

in favor of the plaintiff "?? 3"D;SR3A C6RP6RA36" and a,ainst the defendantCorporation G J Associated Bro:era,e* 3nc* and the latter is here0( ordered to pa( the plaintiff the followin,5

1 he su+ of Php$>)*))))) L representin, overdue accounts plus interest fro+ the firstde+and on 6cto0er 2$* 1777 until full( paid

2 he su+ of Php1=2*))))) as attorne(4s fees

& Cost of suit

S6 6RDRD[2%]

A,,rieved* respondents appealed 0efore the CA As a result* the decision of the RC wasreversed in the CA4s Decision[2=] dated "ove+0er 22* 2))>* in the followin, wise5EREFORE, the appealed decision is* here0(* REVERSED AND SET ASIDE heCo+plaint a,ainst the appellant is perforce DIS&ISSED

SO ORDERED.[2>]

;ndaunted* petitioner filed a 9otion for Reconsideration he sa+e was* however* denied in theassailed 6rder dated 9a( 22* 2))$

Hence* this petition statin, the followin, ,rounds53

PRP6"DRA"C 6? !3D"C SH6FS HA H RSP6"D" C69PA"@ACCPD D3!R@ 6? H B; BAGS

33

RSP6"D"S4 C6"D;C PRP6"DRA"@ SH6FS HA D3!R@ 6? HB; BAGS HAS B" ACCPD


37/560

333

?3"D3"GS 6? ?AC 6? H R3A C6;R AR "3D 6 GRA F3GH

3!

6 S;SA3" H DC3S36" 6? H C6;R 6? APPAS F3 CA;S ;"';S"R3CH9" 6" H PAR 6? RSP6"D"S A H P"S 6? HP336"R[2$]

Si+pl(* the issue 0efore us is whether or not there was valid deliver( on the part of petitioner inaccordance with law* which would ,ive rise to an o0li,ation to pa( on the part of respondent for the value of the 0ul: 0a,s

he uestion is 0asicall( factual since it involves an evaluation of the conflictin, evidence presented 0( the opposin, parties* includin, the eistence and relevance of specific surroundin,circu+stances* to deter+ine the truth or falsit( of alle,ed facts[2#]

Ahile it is well settled that factual issues are not within the province of this Court, as it is not atrier of facts and is not re7uired to e'amine or contrast the oral and documentary evidence de

novo , nevertheless, the Court has the authority to review and, in proper cases, reverse the factual

findings of lower courts in these instances? :a; when the findings of fact of the trial court are in

conflict with those of the appellate court8 :b; when the (udgment of the appellate court is based on misapprehension of facts8 and :c; when the appellate court manifestly overloo&ed certain

relevant facts which, if properly considered, would (ustify a different conclusion.3!" Considering

that in the instant case, the findings of the C# are contrary to those of the 6$C, a minute scrutiny by this Court is in order, and resort to duly proven evidence becomes necessary. +H"

Petitioner avers that it has delivered the 0ul: 0a,s to respondent co+pan(* which effectivel( placed the latter in control and possession thereof* as in fact* respondent co+pan( had +ade useof the said 0ul: 0a,s in the ordinar( course of its 0usiness activities [&1] Conversel(* respondentscontend that the evidence on record +isera0l( failed to esta0lish that the alle,ed deliveries werereceived 0( the authoriMed representative of the respondents hus* there was no deliver( at all inconte+plation of law[&2]

Fe find respondentsQ contention devoid of persuasive force

$he resolution of the issue at bar necessitates a scrutiny of the concept of deliveryJ in the

conte't of the


38/560

$hus, ownership does not pass by mere stipulation but only by delivery. +-" Manresa e'plains,

the delivery of the thing ' ' ' signifies that title has passed from the seller to the buyer.K +"

Moreover, according to $olentino, the purpose of delivery is not only for the en(oyment of thething but also a mode of ac7uiring dominion and determines the transmission of ownership, the

birth of the real right. +*" $he delivery under any of the forms provided by #rticles )!* to )-H-

of the Civil Code signifies that the transmission of ownership from vendor to vendee has ta&en place. +2" Fere, emphasis is placed on #rticle )!* of the Civil Code, which contemplates what is

&nown as real or actual delivery, when the thing sold is placed in the control and possession of

the vendee. +!"

3n E2uatorial 3ealty 4evelopment, Inc. v. 5ayfair $heater, Inc.*[%)] the concept of deliveryJwas elucidated, to wit?

=elivery has been described as a composite act, a thing in which both parties must (oin and theminds of both parties concur. It is an act by which one party parts with the title to and the

possession of the property, and the other ac7uires the right to and the possession of the same. In

its natural sense, delivery means something in addition to the delivery of property or title8 it

means transfer of possession. In the


39/560

5 So after (our co+pan( delivered on 'ul( &)* 1777* what did (ou do net* if an(* 9rFitness

A5 After 3 was advised 0( our deliver(+an* I 99-a3-/y a//- &r. Trna 37a3 ;- ;-r-a/- 3o -/-r on/y our 7unr- +-- 400 +. o u/: a

5 And what was his reaction to (our report* 9r FitnessA5 At first* 3 apolo,iMed 0ecause 3 was not a0le to +a:e the five hundred pieces reuired So* in

repl(T

A@ C6RAD

5 So what was his reaction to (our report that (ou delivered onl( four hundred pieces .%)) pcs/ of 0ul: 0a,s instead of five hundred pieces .=)) pcs/* 9r Fitness

A5 e ac=nowledged our delivery and than=ed me for delivering the item.

5 So* after the conversation with 9r rinidad* what happened net* in so far as the seconddeliver(* 9r Fitness

A5 And in that call* he followed>up to me the balance of delivery

5 So what did (ou tell hi+A5 3 told hi+ that the two thousand pieces .2*))) pcs/ we a,reed was alread( in process in our

production and the one thousand pieces .1*))) pcs/ is scheduled to deliver a few da(s later

5 "o* +( uestion is* who advised (ou that there was alread( deliver( +ade on Au,ust %*1777

A5 6ur deliver(+an advised +e that the( have alread( delivered the one thousand pieces.1*))) pcs/ 0ul: 0a,s to the Ce+ent 9anufacturin, Plant

5 Fhat did (ou do after receivin, that infor+ation fro+ (our deliver(+anA5 )fter that advise[d", I called again 5r. $rinidad to inform him that we already delivered

one thousand pieces %-,999 pcs.' of bul= bags and he ac=nowledged our delivery andthan= me that I was able to deliver one thousand pieces %-,999 pcs.', sir.

5 "ow* who advised (ou that there was a deliver( of si hundred pieces .>)) pcs/A5 6ur deliver(+an* sir


40/560

5 So* havin, 0een infor+ed that* what did (ou do net* if an(* 9r FitnessA5 )nd after advised I called again 53. ;erry $rinidad to inform of the delivered si*

hundred pieces %199 pcs.' bags.

5 And then what was his reaction* 9r Fitness

A5 e confirmed our delivery, sir.

5 So after that* did (ou have an( occasion to tal: a,ain personall( to 9r Gerr( rinidad* 9rFitness

A5 @es* sir

5 Fhen was thisA5 3t was when the ti+e 3 have to su0+it the invoices* sir

5 Fhat for these invoices are .sic/* 9r FitnessA5 hese invoices have to 0e su0+itted to the custo+er for reco,niMin, the deliver(* as well as

for collection purposes and pa(+ent of the orders* sir

[%2]

Based on the fore,oin,* it is clear that petitioner has actuall( delivered the 0ul: 0a,s torespondent co+pan(* albeit the sa+e was not delivered to the person na+ed in the Purchase6rder 3n addition* 0( allowin, petitioner4s e+plo(ee to pass throu,h the ,uard-on-dut(* whoallowed the entr( of deliver( into the pre+ises of Hi-Ce+ent* which is the desi,nated deliver(site* respondents had effectivel( a0andoned whatever infir+ities +a( have attended the deliver(of the 0ul: 0a,s As a +atter of fact* if respondents were war( a0out the +anner of deliver(* suchissue should have 0een 0rou,ht up i++ediatel( after the first deliver( was +ade 3nstead* 9rrinidad ac:nowled,ed receipt of the first 0atch of the 0ul: 0a,s and even followed up there+ainin, 0alance of the orders for deliver(

hus* the RC correctl( held that5he evidence adduced 0( the parties clearl( proved that Gerardo rinidad hi+self* initiall(ordered 1*))) pieces of "?? 0ul: 0a,s at Php))) per piece fro+ the plaintiff on or a0out 'ul(27* 1777 After testin, and chec:in, sa+ple 0a,s* 9r rinidad had approved it and eveninstructed the Sales 9ana,er of "?? in the person of Richard Ber,a+o to place and print the 0a,s with G J lo,o as well as control nu+0er on all our sides of 0a,s and thereafter a,reed tothe uantit( of wo housand [2*)))] pieces as what had 0een a,reed upon durin, the +eetin,with the ;nion Ce+ent 9ar:etin, personnel at the Ce+ent +anufacturin, [S" 9arch 1)*2))&* pp 2=] Initial delivery of 099 pieces of bul= bags were made on 8uly /-, - and then followed by another delivery of additional bul= bags on )ugust , - while the remaining

199 pieces of bags were delivered on )ugust 1, - to complete the !,999 pieces ordered by

the defendant. )ll these deliveries were made to defendant?s designated address at @; < L

)ssociated +ro=erage, Inc., (A7 I (E5EB$ (73&73)$I7B, B73C);)3)D

+#L)()B. $hese deliveries were made in compliance with i>(ement?s standardAregular

operating procedure. It passed thru guard on duty, who allowed the entry of delivery into the

premises of i>(ement, which is the designated delivery site and then a representative of the

defendant thereat received the delivered items in behalf of the defendant.[%&]


41/560

Respondents4 +ere alle,ations of non-deliver( and +isdeliver( deserve scant consideration 6nthe +atter of non-deliver(* Fe find it 0iMarre that respondents failed in de+andin, the deliver( of the 0ul: 0a,s despite its ur,ent need to procure the sa+e* as ad+itted 0( respondents4 witnessesCusto+aril(* failure to deliver the ,oods could have pro+pted respondents to follow up on theorders and ensure that the sa+e is delivered at the earliest opportunit( 3n fact* if the( had not

actuall( received an( uantit( of 0ul: 0a,s* despite their alle,ed repeated de+ands* the( couldhave de+anded in writin, or resorted to le,al action for the enforce+ent thereof But there wasdearth of evidence showin, the sa+e 6n the +atter of +isdeliver(* when the instruction todeliver the partial five hundred .=))/ pieces of 0ul: 0a,s was +ade 0( 9r rinidad* the latter did not even +ention the na+e Ra+il A+0rosio he si,nificance of such condition* therefore*falls flat to the actual deliver( +ade 0( petitioner at the a,reed deliver( site As testified 0( 9r!er,a+os* to wit5

D3RC S396"@

A@ C6RAD

5 "ow* 9r Fitness* where was the deliver( of the 0ul: 0a,s reuired for (ou 0( 9rrinidad

A5 3 was instructed 0( 9r Gerr( rinidad to deliver the partial five hundred pieces .=)) pcs/ 0a,s to ;nion Ce+ent 9anufacturin, Plant in "orMa,ara(* Bulacan* under the na+e G J Associated Bro:era,e* sir

5 Did he advise (ou of specific person to who+ this deliver( should 0e +ade* 9r FitnessA5 e did not advise me of any person, sir.[%%]

3nterestin,l(* respondents presented the pa(roll of its e+plo(ees wherein the na+e Ra+ilA+0rosio appeared onl( in the pa(roll for the periods of 'ul( 1> to &1* 1777* Au,ust 1> to &1*1777 and Septe+0er 1> to &)* 1777 However* for the period fro+ 'ul( &) to Au,ust >* 1777*durin, which the deliveries were +ade* the na+e Ra+il A+0rosio does not appear in the pa(rollof respondent co+pan([%=] hus* it is clear that durin, the ti+e the deliveries were +ade on thea,reed dates and for which petitioner in fact delivered the 0a,s to respondent co+pan(* there wasno Ra+il A+0rosio to actuall( receive the sa+e as he o0viousl( did not report for wor: [%>]

9ore i+portantl(* in his testi+on(* respondent rinidad cate,oricall( ad+itted receivin, thedeliver( receipts* which evince the actual deliver( of the 0ul: 0a,s* to wit5

D3RC A93"A36"

A@ R6DR3G;U

5 he plaintiff also presented other Deliver( Receipts* 9r Fitness* one .1/ dated on Au,ust%* 1777* "o )227* previousl( +ar:ed as hi0it C for the plaintiff and another Receipt "o )2&1 dated Au,ust >* 1777* :indl( ,o over these Deliver( Receipts* 9r Fitness* andinfor+ us if (ou have seen this Deliver( Receipts 0efore


42/560

C6;R

5 he one with "o )227 dated Au,ust %* 1777* (ou saw itA5 @es* (our honor* 3 have seen this

5 Fhere did (ou see itA5 3 have seen this 0efore his was attached to the 0illin, the( have sent us* (our honor

5 How a0out the other receipt* 9r Fitness* "o )2&1

3"RPRR

Fitness perusin, over the docu+ent hand 0( the counsel

A5 @es sir* 3 have alread( seen this sir

5 And on what occasion did (ou see this Deliver( Receipt* 9r FitnessA5 hru the 0illin, that the( have sent to us* sir

5 3n other words* (ou have copies of these deliver( receipts

A@ R6DR3G;U

5 9r Fitness* (ou +entioned that (ou have seen these Deliver( Receipts 0efore thru theinvoices or 0illin,s sent to (ou 0( the plaintiff in this case* if these receipts are shown to(ou* will (ou 0e a0le to identif( the+

A5 @es* sir[%$]

Si+ilarl(* the correspondin, sales invoices were dul( served upon* and received 0( respondentco+pan(4s representatives* as shown 0( the si,natures of one 9arian Ga0a(* respondentrinidad4s helper at his residence* who received the sales invoices in 0ehalf of respondentco+pan([%#] 3t is worth( to stress that fro+ the ti+e the copies of the sales invoices were servedon respondents and thereafter* respondents were never heard to co+plain relative thereto[%7]

6n this score* Fe a,ree with petitioner that it is rather confoundin, that respondents* despitereceipt* on various occasions* of the 0illin, state+ents and deliver( receipts* failed to even callthe attention of petitioner re,ardin, the +atter[=)] 3n the sa+e vein* despite the su0seuent receiptof de+and letters* receipt of which were dul( ac:nowled,ed and ad+itted 0( respondents* thelatter opted not to uestion or contest the sa+e* which is uite unusual and etre+el(inconsistent with its clai+ of non-deliver( of the 0ul: 0a,s in uestion[=1]

At an( rate* Fe find +erit in petitioner4s ar,u+ent that despite its failure to strictl( co+pl( with


43/560

the instruction to deliver the 0ul: 0a,s to the specified person* acceptance of deliver( +a( 0einferred fro+ the conduct of the respondents [=2] Accordin,l(* respondents +a( 0e held lia0le to pa( for the price of the 0ul: 0a,s pursuant to Article 1=#= of the Civil Code* which providesthat5

#6$IC* 2))2* that respondent was the onl( sole user of tonner 0a,s at ;nion Ce+ent Bulacan Plant intended for the CP Casecnan ProEect. Pro(ect /fro+ Au,ust 1777 to 'une 2))1 o 0olster this* the pictures ta:en at the pre+ises of respondentco+pan( situated near the ProEect clearl( depict respondent co+pan(4s act of usin, tonner 0a,ssupplied 0( petitioner* in haulin, ;nion Ce+ent intended for the ProEect[=$]

At this Euncture* the overridin, consideration is the evidence adduced that the 0ul: 0a,sdelivered 0( petitioner at the ;nion Ce+ent Plant were actuall( used 0( respondents* and this


44/560

Court cannot allow respondents to enrich the+selves at the epense of another

Havin, received the aforesaid 0illin,s* the correspondin, deliver( receipts and de+and lettersrendered 0( petitioner* respondents should have forthwith called the attention of petitioner* if indeed* its insinuation that the 0ul: 0a,s the+selves have not 0een delivered or +isdelivered

were true[=#]

3n the ordinar( course of 0usiness* in case of unwarranted clai+s of pa(+ent of asu+ of +one(* one would i++ediatel( protest the sa+e [=7] But no such action was ta:en 0(respondents despite notice thereof[>)] 6nl( when respondents were reuired 0( the RC tosu0+it an answer to the co+plaint were the( constrained to contest the clai+s of petitioner 3f respondent were to 0e defeated onl( 0( its failure to effect deliver( to the desi,natedrepresentative of respondent* the latter would inevita0l( 0e unEustl( enriched at the epense of the for+er[>1]

3f at all* respondents4 failure to pa( the purchase price +a( have 0een due to lac: of funds rather than non-deliver( or +isdeliver( of the 0ul: 0a,s 6n cross-ea+ination* Aurelio Go+eM* petitioner4s ,eneral +ana,er* testified that respondents ad+itted after the third deliver( that the(

were postponin, the pa(+ent 0ecause the( have no +one( to pa( hus5

CR6SS-A93"A36"

A@ R6DR3G;U5

5 How a0out the other officers of the corporation* did (ou inuire fro+ the+A5 "ot +e personall( sir* 0ut +( credit collector

5 Did (ou inuire fro+ the+ what was the result of the inuir(A5 $his was after the third delivery was made when they said that they have no money to pay

that is why they were postponing the payment sir.[>2]

Siftin, throu,h the testi+on( of the witnesses and the evidence su0+itted* the evidence of petitioner preponderantl( esta0lished that there was valid deliver( of 0ul: 0a,s* which ,ives riseto respondent co+pan(4s correspondin, o0li,ation to pa( therefor B( preponderance of evidence is +eant that the evidence adduced 0( one side is* as a whole* superior to that of theother side[>&] ssentiall(* preponderance of evidence refers to the co+parative wei,ht of theevidence presented 0( the opposin, parties [>%] As such* it has 0een defined as the wei,ht* credit*and value of the a,,re,ate evidence on either side* and is usuall( considered to 0e s(non(+ouswith the ter+ ,reater wei,ht of the evidence or ,reater wei,ht of the credi0le evidence [>=] 3t is proof that is +ore convincin, to the court as worth( of 0elief than that which is offered inopposition thereto[>>] Contrar( to respondents4 view* Fe find that petitioner has successfull(esta0lished its case Accordin,l(* Fe ,ive ,reater wei,ht* credit and value to its evidence

?inall(* with re,ard to the lia0ilit( of respondent rinidad* we adopt with approval the findin,sof the RC that he was +erel( 0ein, sued in his capacit( as General 9ana,er of respondentco+pan([>$] Since there was no showin, of an( of circu+stances warrantin, the piercin, the veilof corporate fiction* he cannot 0e held Eointl( and severall( lia0le for the outstandin, o0li,ationof respondent co+pan([>#] As held in Lu&an International Corporation v. 6eyes*[>7] citin, an


45/560

earlier case* those who see: to pierce the veil +ust clearl( esta0lish that the separate and distinct personalities of the corporations are set up to Eustif( a wron,* protect fraud* or perpetrate adeception* to wit5

he sa+e principle was the su0Eect and discussed in 3ivera v. #nited Laboratories, Inc.*

Ahile a corporation may e'ist for any lawful purpose, the law will regard it as an association of persons or, in case of two corporations, merge them into one, when its corporate legal entity isused as a cloa= for fraud or illegality. $his is the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate

fiction. $he doctrine applies only when such corporate fiction is used to defeat public

convenience, ustify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, or when it is made as a shield to

confuse the legitimate issues , or where a corporation is the mere alter ego or business conduit

of a person, or where the corporation is so organied and controlled and its affairs are so

conducted as to ma&e it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or ad(unct of another corporation.

To r-ar 37- -+ara3- )*)))))/* representin, overdue accounts plus interest fro+ the firstde+and on 6cto0er 2$* 1777 until full( paid in accordance with the doctrine laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines v. (ourt of )ppeals*[$1] then later on in Bacar v. ;allery Frames*[$2] aswell as attorne(4s fees[$&]

#t this (uncture, it is well to note that under acar , in the absence of stipulation by the parties,the (udgment obligor shall be liable to pay si' percent :; interest per annum to be computed

from default, i.e. , (udicial or e'tra(udicial demand pursuant to the provisions of #rticle ))! of

the Civil Code. *" @urthermore, when the (udgment of the court awarding the sum of moneybecomes final and e'ecutory, the rate of legal interest shall be si' percent :; per annum from

such finality until its satisfaction, *-" ta&ing the form of a (udicial debt.

EREFORE, the petition is GRANTED he Decision dated "ove+0er 22* 2))> and the6rder dated 9a( 22* 2))$* respectivel(* of the Court of Appeals are here0( REVERSED andSET ASIDE he Decision of the Re,ional rial Court* dated 'anuar( 2=* 2))=* is here0(AFFIR&ED with &ODIFI#ATION to the effect that le,al interest shall 0e awarded to petitioner at the followin, rates5

a/ ?or the period of 6cto0er 2$* 1777[$>] to 'une &)* 2)1&*[$$] the interest rate of twelve percent

.12K/ per annu+ shall 0e i+posed* co+pounded annuall(I 0/ ?or the period of 'ul( 1* 2)1&[$#] up to the da( prior to the date of pro+ul,ation of this

Decision* the interest rate of si percent .>K/ per annu+ shall 0e i+posed* co+poundedannuall(I and

c/ ?ro+ the date of pro+ul,ation of this Decision up to full pa(+ent* a strai,ht si percent.>K/ interest per annu+ shall 0e i+posed on the su+ of +one( plus the interest co+putedunder para,raph .a/ and .0/ a0ove[$7]


46/560

SO ORDERED.

Eelasco, 4r., :Chairperson;, Eillarama, 4r., 6eyes* and 4ardelea, 44.* concur

[1] Penned 0( Associate 'ustice 'ose Sa0io* 'r* with Associate 'ustices Rosalinda Asuncion-!icente and Ra+on 9 Bato* 'r* concurrin,I Anne A to Petition* rollo* pp &=-%7

[2] Anne B to Petition* id at =)

[&] 6ollo* p 1&

[%] Id. at 12

[=] Id. at 1&

[>] Id.

[$] Id.

[#] Id. at 1%

[7] Id.

[1)] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[1&] Id.

[1%] Co++ent to Petition* rollo* p ##

[1=] Id. at ##-#7

[1>] Id. at #7

[1$] 6ollo* p 1=

[1#] Id.

[17] Id.

[2)] Id. at 1%-1=


47/560

[21] Id. at 1=

[22] Id.

[2&] Id.

[2%] Anne 6 to Petition* rollo* pp #)-#1

[2=] Supra note 1

[2>] Id. at %# .+phasis in the ori,inal/

[2$] 6ollo* p 1$

[2#] /* citin, $olentino v. =e 4esus* 1== Phil1%% .17$%/

[&1] 6ollo* p 21

[&2] Supra note 1* at 7&

[&&] Cebu Ainland =evelopment Corporation v. 0ng Siao Fua* >)> Phil 1)&* 11& .2))7/

[&%] Civil Code* Art 1%7=

[&=] Cebu Ainland =evelopment Corporation v. 0ng Siao Fua, supra note &&* at 11%

[&>] Id.

[&$] Id.

[] Id.

[&7] Id.

[%)] %21 Phil $)7 .2))1/

[%1] Id. at $&1 .+phasis ours/

[%2] S" .Direct a+ination of Richard A,ustin !er,a+os for the Plaintiff/* 9arch 1)* 2))&* pp2$-%2 .+phasis supplied/


48/560

[%&] Supra note 2%* at $#

[%%] S" .Direct a+ination of Richard A,ustin !er,a+os for the Plaintiff/* dated 9arch 1)*2))&* pp 2>-2$ .+phasis supplied/

[%=]

Records* p >&[%>] Id.

[%$] S" .Direct a+ination of Gerardo rinidad for the Defense/* 6cto0er 1&* 2))&* pp 2>-2#

[%#] Records* p >1

[%7] Id.

[=)] 6ollo* p 2%

[=1] Id. at 22

[=2] Id. at 2=-2>

[=&] GR "o -&221$* Au,ust 1=* 17##* 1>% SCRA &12* citin, Pan Pacific Company :Phils.; v. #dvertising Corporation* GR "o -22)=)* 'une 1&* 17>#* 2& SCRA 7$$* 771

[=%] Sy v. Mina, supra* at &1=

[==] Id.* citin, aga =evelopment v. Court of #ppeals* GR "o -2#1$&* Septe+0er &)* 17$1 %1SCRA 1)>

[=>] Supra note 2%* at $#-$7

[=$] Records* p >2

[=#] 6ollo* p 2>

[=7] Id.

[>)] Id.

[>1] Records* p 11=

[>2] S" .Cross a+ination of Aurelio Go+eM/* 9arch &* 2))&* pp 2>-2# .+phasissupplied/

[>&] 6epublic v. 6eyes5Ba&unawa* GR "o 1#)%1#* Au,ust 2#* 2)1&* $)% SCRA 1>&* 1$$-1$#


49/560

[>%] Id. at 1$#

[>=] Id.

[>>] Id.

[>$] Supra note 2%* at #)

[>#] Id.

[>7] GR "o 1#2$27* Septe+0er 27* 2)1)* >&1 SCRA =7>

[$)] Lu&an International Corporation v. 6eyes, supra* at >1$->1#

[$1] GR "o 7$%12* 'ul( 12* 177%* 2&% SCRA $#

[$2]

GR "o 1#7#$1* Au,ust 1&* 2)1&* $)& SCRA %&7[$&] Gastern Shipping ] his is the date of petitioner4s first de+and letter to respondent co+pan(

[$$ " #ccording to acar v. 1allery @rames , in the absence of an e'press stipulation as to the

rate of interest that would govern the parties, the rate of legal interest for loans or forbearance

of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in (udgments shall no longer be twelve percent :)3; per annum 5 as reflected in the case of Gastern Shipping


50/560

SE#OND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 20C605, January 12, 2015 ]

NEI" $. AG'I"AR AND R'$EN #A"I&$AS, !ETITIONERS, VS."IGT$RINGERS #REDIT #OO!ERATIVE, RES!ONDENT.

D E # I S I O N

&ENDO)A, J.*

his is a petition for review on certiorari filed 0( petitioners "eil B A,uilar . #guilar / andRu0en Cali+0as .Calimbas/* see:in, to reverse and set aside the April =* 2)1& [1] and 6cto0er 7*2)1&[2] Resolutions of the Court of Appeals .C#/ in CA-GR SP "o 12#71%* which denied the petition for review outri,ht* assailin, the 'anuar( 2* 2)1& Decision[&] of the Re,ional rial Court*Branch =* Dinalupihan* Bataan . 6$C / and the 9a( 7* 2)12 Decision [%] of the ?irst 9unicipalCircuit rial Court* Dinalupihan* Bataan :MC$C;

3n the lower courts* one of the issues involved was the proper application of the rules when a part( does not appear in the scheduled pre-trial conference despite due notice 3n this petition* thedis+issal 0( the CA of the petition filed under Rule %2 for failure to attach the entire records hasalso 0een put to uestion* aside fro+ the veracit( of inde0tedness issue

T7- Fa3

his case ste++ed fro+ the three .&/ co+plaints for su+ of +one( separatel( filed 0(respondent i,ht0rin,ers Credit Cooperative :respondent; on 'ul( 1%* 2))# a,ainst petitionersA,uilar and Cali+0as* and one Perlita antian,co :$antiangco; which were consolidated 0eforethe ?irst 9unicipal Circuit rial Court* Dinalupihan* Bataan :MC$C; he co+plaints alle,ed


51/560

that antian,co* A,uilar and Cali+0as were +e+0ers of the cooperative who 0orrowed thefollowin, funds5

&. 3n Civil Case "o 1%2#* antian,co alle,edl( 0orrowed P2)>*&1=$1 as evidenced 0(Cash Dis0urse+ent !oucher "o %)1) 0ut the net loan was onl( P%=*#>2)) as supported

0( P"B Chec: "o ))))))=1&&[=]

. 3n Civil Case "o 1%27* petitioner Cali+0as alle,edl( 0orrowed P2)2*#))1# asevidenced 0( Cash Dis0urse+ent !oucher "o &7>2 0ut the net loan was onl( P>)*)2%))as supported 0( P"B Chec: "o ))))))=)##I[>]

3. 3n Civil Case "o 1%&)* petitioner A,uilar alle,edl( 0orrowed P12>*#%7)) as evidenced 0( Cash Dis0urse+ent !oucher "o &7)2 0ut the net loan was onl( P$>*1=2)) assupported 0( P"B Chec: "o ))))))=)2>I[$]

antian,co* A,uilar and Cali+0as filed their respective answers he( unifor+l( clai+ed that

the discrepanc( 0etween the principal a+ount of the loan evidenced 0( the cash dis0urse+entvoucher and the net a+ount of loan reflected in the P"B chec:s showed that the( never 0orrowed the a+ounts 0ein, collected he( also asserted that no interest could 0e clai+ed 0ecause there was no written a,ree+ent as to its i+position

6n the scheduled pre-trial conference* onl( respondent and its counsel appeared he 9CCthen issued the 6rder*[#] dated Au,ust 2=* 2))7* allowin, respondent to present evidence e' parte. Respondent later presented ?ernando 9analili :Manalili;* its incu+0ent General 9ana,er*as its sole witness 3n his testi+on(* 9analili eplained that the discrepanc( 0etween the a+ountsof the loan reflected in the chec:s and those in the cash dis0urse+ent vouchers were due to theaccu+ulated interests fro+ previous outstandin, o0li,ations* withheld share capital* as well as

the service and +iscellaneous fees He stated* however* that it was their 0oo::eeper who could 0est eplain the details

A,uilar and Cali+0as insisted that the( should have the ri,ht to cross-ea+ine the witness ofrespondent* notwithstandin, the fact that these cases were 0ein, heard e' parte 3n the interest of Eustice* the 9CC directed the counsels of the parties to su0+it their respective position paperson the issue of whether or not a part( who had 0een declared as in default +i,ht still participate in the trial of the case 6nl( respondent* however* co+plied with the directive 3n its6rder*[7] dated April 2$* 2)11* the 9CC held that since the proceedin,s were 0ein, heard e' parte* the petitioners who had 0een declared as in default had no ri,ht to participate thereinand to cross-ea+ine the witnesses hereafter* respondent filed its for+al offer of evidence[1)]

5($( 3uling

6n 9a( 7* 2)12* the 9CC resolved the consolidated cases in three separate decisions 3n CivilCase "o 1%2#*[11] the 9CC dis+issed the co+plaint a,ainst antian,co 0ecause there was noshowin, that she received the a+ount 0ein, clai+ed 9oreover* the P"B chec: was +ade pa(a0le to cash and was encashed 0( a certain !ioleta A,uilar here was* however* noevidence that she ,ave the proceeds to antian,co ?urther* the dates indicated in the cash


52/560

dis0urse+ent voucher and the P"B chec: varied fro+ each other and su,,ested that the vouchercould refer to a different loan

he decisions in Civil Case "o 1%27[12] and 1%&)*[1&] however* found 0oth Cali+0as and A,uilarlia0le to respondent for their respective de0ts he P"B chec:s issued to the petitioners proved

the eistence of the loan transactions heir receipts of the loan were proven 0( their si,naturesappearin, on the dorsal portions of the chec:s as well as on the cash dis0urse+ent vouchers As a+atter of practice* 0an:s would allow the encash+ent of chec:s onl( 0( the na+ed pa(ee andsu0Eect to the presentation of proper identification "onetheless* the 9CC ruled that onl( thea+ount shown in the P"B chec: +ust 0e awarded 0ecause respondent failed to present its 0oo::eeper to Eustif( the hi,her a+ounts 0ein, clai+ed he court also awarded attorne(4s feesin favor of respondent he dispositive portion of the decision in Civil Case "o 1%27 reads5

FHR?6R* pre+ises considered* Eud,+ent is here0( rendered in plaintiff4s favor and a,ainstthe defendant* orderin, the latter to pa( plaintiff the a+ount of P>)*)2%)) with interest at therate of 12K per annu+ fro+ April %* 2))$ until full( paid* plus P1=*))))) as attorne(4s fees

Costs a,ainst the defendant

S6 6RDRD[1%]

And in Civil Case "o 1%&)* the dispositive portion states5

FHR?6R* pre+ises considered* Eud,+ent is here0( rendered in plaintiff4s favor and a,ainstthe defendant* orderin, the latter to pa( the plaintiff the a+ount of $>*1=2)) with interest at therate of 12K per annu+ fro+ ?e0ruar( 2#* 2))$ until full( paid

Defendant is further directed to pa( attorne(4s fees euivalent to 2=K of the adEud,ed a+ount

Costs a,ainst the defendant

S6 6RDRD[1=]

6n 'ul( 12* 2)12* a notice of appeal[1>] was filed 0( the petitioners* and on Au,ust 1=* 2)12* the(filed their Eoint +e+orandu+ for appeal[1$] 0efore the Re,ional rial Court* Branch =* Bataan:6$C; A,uilar and Cali+0as ar,ued out that had the( 0een allowed to present evidence* the(would have esta0lished that the loan docu+ents were 0o,us Respondent produced docu+ents toappear that it had new 0orrowers 0ut did not lend an( a+ount to the+ Attached to the Eoint+e+orandu+ were photocopies of the dorsal portions of the P"B chec:s which showed that

these chec:s were to 0e deposited 0ac: to respondent4s 0an: account

3$( 3uling

6n 'anuar( 2* 2)1&* the RC rendered separate decisions in Civil Case "o DH-1&))-12[1#] andCivil Case "o DH-1277-12[17] which affir+ed the 9CC decisions 3t held that the P"B chec:swere concrete evidence of the inde0tedness of the petitioners to respondent he RC relied onthe findin,s of the 9CC that the chec:s 0ore no endorse+ent to another person or entit( he


53/560

chec:s were issued in the na+e of the petitioners and* thus* the( had the ri,ht to encash the sa+eand appropriate the proceeds he decretal portions of the RC decision in 0oth cases si+ilarl(read5

FHR?6R* pre+ises considered* the appeal is here0( D"3D he Decision dated 9a( 7*

2)12 of the ?irst 9unicipal Circuit rial Court .1

st

9CC/* Dinalupihan-Her+osa* Bataan ishere0( affir+ed in toto.

S6 6RDRD

6n 'anuar( 1#* 2)1&* the petitioners filed their Eoint +otion for reconsideration8new trial[2)] 0efore the RC A,uilar and Cali+0as reiterated their position that the( did not receive the proceeds of the chec:s As an alternative pra(er* petitioners +oved that the RC re+and the caseto the 9CC for a new trial on account of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Arcenit Dela orre* the 0oo::eeper of respondent

6n ?e0ruar( 11* 2)1&* the RC issued separate orders[21] den(in, the +otion of the petitioners 3teplained that all the issues were alread( passed upon and the supposed newl( discoveredevidence was alread( availa0le durin, appeal* 0ut the petitioners failed to present the sa+e inti+e

() 3uling

A,,rieved* A,uilar and Cali+0as filed a petition for review[22] 0efore the CA on 9arch 11* 2)1&3t was dis+issed* however* in the uestioned resolution*[2&] dated April =* 2)1&* statin, that the petition was for+all( defective 0ecause the verification and disclai+er of foru+ shoppin, andthe affidavit of service had a defective (urat for failure of the notar( pu0lic to indicate hisnotarial co++ission nu+0er and office address 9oreover* the entire records of the case*inclusive of the oral and docu+ents evidence* were not attached to the petition in contraventionof Section 2* Rule %2 of the Rules of Court

A +otion for reconsideration[2%] was filed 0( the petitioners which sou,ht the lenienc( of the CAhe( attached a corrected verification and disclai+er of foru+ shoppin, and affidavit of servicehe( as:ed the CA to si+pl( order the RC to elevate the records of the case pursuant to Section$* Rule %2 of the Rules of Court 9oreover* the petitioners could not attach the records of thecase 0ecause the floodin, caused 0( Ha0a,at in Au,ust 2)12 soa:ed the said records in water

3n the other uestioned resolution* dated 6cto0er 7* 2)1&* the CA denied the +otion 0ecause the petitioners still failed to attach the entire records of the case which was a +andator( reuire+ent

under Section 2* Rule %2

Hence* this petition

SO"E ASSIGN&ENT OF ERROR

TE #O'RT OF A!!EA"S #O&&ITTED GRAVE A$'SE OF DIS#RETIONA&O'NTING TO "A#? OR IN E#ESS OF J'RISDI#TION EN IT DIS&ISSED


54/560

TE !ETITION FOR REVIE FI"ED $EFORE IT $B TE !ETITIONERS 'NDERR'"E 42 OF TE R'"ES OF #O'RT #ITING TAT TE SAID !ETITION ISFOR&A""B DEFE#TIVE FOR FAI"'RE OF TE !ETITIONERS TO S'$&IT ITTE SAID !ETITION TE ENTIRE RE#ORDS OF TE A!!EA"ED #IVI" #ASENOS. D@100@12 AND D@12CC@12.[2=]

he petitioners ar,ue that contrar( to the findin,s of the CA* the( su0stantiall( co+plied withthe reuired for+ and contents of a petition for review under Section 2* Rule %2 of the Rules ofCourt here is nothin, in the provision which reuires that the entire records of the appealedcase should 0e endorsed to the CA Such reuire+ent would definitel( 0e cu+0erso+e to poorliti,ants li:e the+

he( assert that the( su0+itted the followin, pleadin,s and +aterial portions of the court recordsin their petition for review5 .1/ certified copies of the decisions* orders or resolutions of the RCand the 9CCI .2/ co+plaints a,ainst the petitioners attached with docu+ents used 0(respondent in its for+al offer of evidenceI .&/ answer of the petitionersI .%/ order of the 9CC

declarin, the petitioners in defaultI .=/ respondent4s for+al offer of evidenceI .>/ notice ofappealI .$/ Eoint +e+orandu+ of appealI and .#/ Eoint +otion for reconsideration8new trialAccordin, to the petitioners* these pleadin,s and records were sufficient to support their petitionfor review

Assu+in, that there was a reason to dis+iss the petition on account of technicalities* the petitioners ar,ue that the CA should not have strictl( applied the rules of procedure and providedlenienc( to the petitioners he( also as: the Court to ,ive a ,lance on the +erits of their case 0rou,ht 0efore the CA

6n ?e0ruar( $* 2)1%* respondent filed its co++ent[2>] contendin, that the petitioners had noecuse in their non-co+pliance with Section 2* Rule %2 he( clai+ that the court records werenot attached 0ecause these were soa:ed in flood water in Au,ust 2)12* 0ut the RC rendered itsdecision in 'anuar( 2)1& he petitioners failed to secure a certification fro+ the RC that theserecords were indeed unavaila0le

6n 9a( 21* 2)1%* the petitioners filed their repl( 0efore this Court* [2$] addin, that the elevationof the entire records of the case was not a +andator( reuire+ent* and the CA could eercise itsdiscretion that it furnished with the entire records of the case 0( invo:in, Section $* Rule %2 ofthe Rules of Court

T7- #our3H Ru/n

First &rocedural Issue

6n the sole assi,n+ent of error* the Court a,rees with the petitioners that Section 2* Rule %2does not reuire that the entire records of the case 0e attached to the petition for review he provision states5


55/560

Sec. 3. @orm and contents. 5 $he petition shall be filed in seven :*; legible copies, with the

original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall :a; state

the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or (udges thereofeither as petitioners or respondents8 :b; indicate the specific material dates showing that it was

filed on time8 :c; set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the

specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the 6egional $rial Court,and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal8 :d; be accompaniedby clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the udgments or final orders of both

lower courts, certified correct by the cler= of court of the 3egional $rial (ourt, the re2uisite

number of plain copies thereof an o 37- +/-an an o37-r 9a3-ra/ +or3on o 37-r-or a ;ou/ u++or3 37- a//-a3on o 37- +-33on [+phasis and underscorin, supplied]

$he above7uoted provision enumerates the re7uired documents that must be attached to a petition for review, to wit? :); clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the (udgments

or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the cler& of court of the 6egional $rial

Court8 :3; the re7uisite number of plain copies thereof8 and :+; of the pleadings and other

material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. Clearly, the 6ules do not re7uire that the entire records of the case be attached to the petition for review.

0nly when these specified documents are not attached in the petition will it suffer infirmitiesunder Section +, 6ule 3, which states?

Sec. +. Gffect of failure to comply with re7uirements. 5 $he failure of the petitioner to complywith any of the foregoing re7uirements regarding the payment of the doc&et and other lawful

fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents

which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

3n (anton v. (ity of (ebu*[2#] the Court discussed the i+portance of attachin, the pleadin,s or+aterial portions of the records to the petition for review [P]etitioner4s discretion in choosin,the docu+ents to 0e attached to the petition is however not un0ridled he CA has the dut( tochec: the eercise of this discretion* to see to it that the su0+ission of supportin, docu+ents isnot +erel( perfunctor( he practical aspect of this dut( is to ena0le the CA to deter+ine at theearliest possi0le ti+e the eistence of prima facie +erit in the petition[27] 3n that case* the petition was denied 0ecause the petitioner failed to attach the co+plaint* answer and appeal+e+orandu+ to support their alle,ation

3n (usi>ernandeH v. 4iaH ,[&)] a case where the petitioner did not attach to her petition for reviewa cop( of the contract to sell that was at the center of controvers(* the Court nonetheless foundthat there was a su0stantial co+pliance with the rule* considerin, that the petitioner hadappended to the petition for review a certified cop( of the decision of the 9C that contained a

ver0ati+ reproduction of the o+itted contract

Recentl(* in ;alveH, v. ()*[&1] it was held that attachin, the other records of the 9C and theRC were not necessar( 0ased on the circu+stances of the case he petitioner therein was notassailin, the propriet( of the findin,s of fact 0( the 9C and the RC* 0ut onl( the conclusionsreached 0( the said lower courts after their appreciation of the facts 3n dealin, with theuestions of law* the CA could si+pl( refer to the attached decisions of the 9C and the RC


56/560

hus* the uestion in the case at 0ench is whether or not the petitioners attached the sufficient pleadin,s and +aterial portions of the records in their petition for review he

Documents

Jurisprudence 2015