Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1987 > July 1987 Decisions > G.R. No. 74625 July 31, 1987 - MATEO P. FRANCISCO v. PELAGIO S. MANDI:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 74625. July 31, 1987.]

CAPTAIN MATEO P. FRANCISCO, Petitioners, v. HON. PELAGIO S. MANDI, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Isabela, Basilan, Branch I and ALBINO AREVALO, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; CAPRICIOUS, ARBITRARY AND WHIMSICAL EXERCISE OF POWER, ESSENTIAL. — In the case of Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration vs Lucero (125 SCRA 337, 343), this Court ruled that —." . . For certiorari to lie, ‘there must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of the judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law traditions (Panaligan v. Adolfo, 67 SCRA 176, 180).’ The ‘abuse of discretion must be grave and patent, and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically (Palma and Ignacio v. Q. & S., Inc., Et Al., 17 SCRA 97, 100).’"

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN CASE AT BAR. — In the instant case, it is obvious that there is no capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power. Petitioner avers that the best evidence to determine who the borrowers were is the Real Estate Mortgage read together with the Promissory Note; that it is common knowledge that the proceeds of real estate loans from the Philippine National Bank are delivered to the borrower; and that during the trial, no documentary evidence was adduced by private respondent to show that petitioner received the proceeds of the loan. Based on these averments, petitioner concludes that the lower court erred or abused its discretion in holding that petitioner received the proceeds of the loan for this would be in violation of the bank policy, unless of course a written authority had been given by private respondent to the petitioner. No such document exists, in view of which, the presumption is that private respondent received the proceeds of the loan. But petitioner himself stated the exception to the rule, that is — "unless of course a written authority was given by plaintiff to defendant." Such authority was categorically pointed out by respondent Judge in his Order dated April 15, 1985 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Rollo, pp. 22-23), the pertinent portion of which is quoted hereunder: "Exhibit B of the plaintiff in this case is the Promissory Note dated November 22, 1974, acknowledging receipt of the sum of P8,000.00 The said document is signed by the plaintiff and the defendant (Exh. "B-4"), as well as his wife, Eleonor S. Francisco (Exh. "B-5") together with the plaintiff, Ignacia Petilla. The following phrase is typewritten at the bottom of Exhibit "B", quote: ‘please pay the proceed of this loan to Mr. Mateo P. Francisco . . .’ (Emphasis supplied). At the trial, plaintiffs testimony that the defendant received all the proceeds of the loan, was not controverted." Evidently, respondent Judge cannot be faulted for maintaining his stand.

3. ID.; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT GENERALLY NOT DISTURBED ON APPEAL. — This Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court over matters involving weight of evidence in certiorari cases (Padilla v. Commission on Elections, July 9, 1985, 137 SCRA 424). It is too well-settled to need further elaboration, that the findings of fact of the trial court, if supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court (Talisay Employees & Laborers’ Association Et. Al. v. CIR Et. Al., G.R. No. 39844, July 31, 1986; People v. Monteverde, G.R. No. 60962, July 11, 1986; People v. Crus. G.R. No. L-68805, July 9, 1986; Director of Lands Et. Al. v. Funtilar, G.R. No. 68533, May 23, 1986; Legaspi v. CA Et. Al., L-45510, May 27, 1986).

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — That the findings of the trial court, in the case at bar, are based on substantial evidence is beyond question. The ruling of the trial court on this matter is as follows: "Indeed that the loan of P8,000.00 was defendant’s obligation, and/or was obtained from the bank for the benefit of the defendant, who received the aforementioned sum of money, is indubitably proven by the defendant’ own admission as indicated in plaintiff’s Exhibit "C." In this Exhibit, a letter addressed to the Bank on 5 August 1976, and signed by the defendant, he categorically admitted that the loan of P8,000.00 granted by the Philippine National Bank on November 22, 1974 was his account. This kind of evidence is admissible against the defendant (Sec. 22, Rule 130, Rules of Court), and correctly appreciated by the Court in its Decision (p. 2) against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff." Furthermore, as already shown above, petitioner himself personally received the loan money of P8,000.00. Thus, as aforesaid findings are supported by unrefuted oral and documentary evidence, there appears to be no cogent reason to disturb the findings of fact of the trial court.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to annul and set aside the March 4, 1985 Decision * (and the Order denying the motion for reconsideration) of the then Court of First Instance of Basilan in Civil Case No. 135, entitled Albino Arevalo v. Captain Mateo P. Francisco.

The dispositive portion of said decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment in favor of plaintiff Albino Arevalo ordering defendant Mateo Francisco to pay plaintiff the sum of P8,591.55 plus legal interest thereon, plus P1,500.00 as attorney’s fees and costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

As found by the trial court, the factual background of this case is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Sometime in the month of November, 1974, Petitioner, accompanied by his father Maximo Francisco, went to the residence of plaintiff (private respondent herein), in Lamitan, Basilan, to borrow P3,000.00 from him. To accommodate petitioner who is his nephew-in-law, on November 20, 1974, private respondent mortgaged a parcel of agricultural land with the Philippine National Bank in Zamboanga City for P3,000.00, and in the execution of the Real Estate Mortgage, petitioner and his wife signed as principal co-obligors. The latter also signed together with private respondent and his late wife a promissory note in favor of the Philippine National Bank with the understanding that petitioner will assume and pay the obligation plus the interest that will be due thereon. In fact it was petitioner who personally received the loan money of P8,000.00 from the bank, and in his letter dated August 5, 1976 to the Manager of the Philippine National Bank, Zamboanga City, petitioner admitted his loan account of P8,000.00.

However, when the loan became due, it was private respondent who paid it to avoid the mortgage being foreclosed; and up to the present, petitioner has not yet paid the amount to him (Decision, Civil Case No. 135, Rollo, p. 7; Order dated April 15, 1985, Rollo, pp. 22-23).

On July 14, 1980, private respondent filed with the then Court of First Instance of Basilan a complaint for recovery of money against the herein petitioner, docketed therein as Civil Case No. 135 (Record, pp. 11-15).

Petitioner, in his Answer of October 1, 1980 (Ibid., pp. 17-19), denies the main allegations in the complaint and claimed in effect that it was he and his wife who accommodated private respondent who needed the loan as he is better known to the bank personnel. He claimed further that he agreed to be co-obligor because private respondent is his uncle-in-law and that he made payments to the bank on behalf of the private respondent because he is a permanent resident of Zamboanga City while private respondent is a Lamitan resident and did not have enough time to transact his business with the bank. The last payment made by him, as shown in Annex "D-1," was on August 25, 1980. However, as early as September 3, 1979, private respondent, through counsel, already demanded from him the payment of P8,000.00, which he never owed (Rollo, pp. 17-19).chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

As aforestated, respondent Judge, in a Decision dated March 4, 1985, ruled in favor of private respondent (Ibid., pp. 7-9).

On March 22, 1985, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Ibid., pp. 20-21), which motion was denied in an Order dated April 15, 1985 (Ibid., pp. 22-23).

Hence, this petition (Ibid., pp. 3-6).

The Second Division of this Court, in a Resolution dated July 2, 1986, resolved to require the respondents to comment (Ibid., p. 31), which comment was filed by private respondent on August 14, 1986 (Ibid., pp. 32-36) while a reply thereto (Ibid., p. 42) was filed by the petitioner in compliance with the resolution dated September 17, 1986 (Ibid., p. 38).

In a Resolution dated March 30, 1987, the Second Division of this Court resolved to give due course to the petition, and to require the parties to file their respective memoranda (Ibid., p. 44).

On May 2, 1987, private respondent filed a Manifestation praying, in substance, that his Comment of August 7, 1986 be considered as his memorandum (Ibid., pp. 46-47), while petitioner filed his Memorandum on May 13, 1987 (Ibid., pp. 52-54).

The sole issue in this case is — whether or not certiorari will lie.

The instant petition is devoid of merit.

In the case of Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration vs Lucero (125 SCRA 337, 343), this Court ruled that —

". . . For certiorari to lie, ‘there must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of the judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law traditions (Panaligan v. Adolfo, 67 SCRA 176, 180).’ The ‘abuse of discretion must be grave and patent, and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically (Palma and Ignacio v. Q. & S., Inc., Et Al., 17 SCRA 97, 100).’"

In the instant case, it is obvious that there is no capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power.

Petitioner avers that the best evidence to determine who the borrowers were is the Real Estate Mortgage read together with the Promissory Note; that it is common knowledge that the proceeds of real estate loans from the Philippine National Bank are delivered to the borrower; and that during the trial, no documentary evidence was adduced by private respondent to show that petitioner received the proceeds of the loan. Based on these averments, petitioner concludes that the lower court erred or abused its discretion in holding that petitioner received the proceeds of the loan for this would be in violation of the bank policy, unless of course a written authority had been given by private respondent to the petitioner. No such document exists, in view of which, the presumption is that private respondent received the proceeds of the loan.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

But petitioner himself stated the exception to the rule, that is — "unless of course a written authority was given by plaintiff to defendant." Such authority was categorically pointed out by respondent Judge in his Order dated April 15, 1985 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Rollo, pp. 22-23), the pertinent portion of which is quoted hereunder:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Exhibit B of the plaintiff in this case is the Promissory Note dated November 22, 1974, acknowledging receipt of the sum of P8,000.00 The said document is signed by the plaintiff and the defendant (Exh. "B-4"), as well as his wife, Eleonor S. Francisco (Exh. "B-5") together with the plaintiff, Ignacia Petilla. The following phrase is typewritten at the bottom of Exhibit "B", quote: ‘please pay the proceed of this loan to Mr. Mateo P. Francisco ..’ (Emphasis supplied). At the trial, plaintiffs testimony that the defendant received all the proceeds of the loan, was not controverted."cralaw virtua1aw library

Evidently, respondent Judge cannot be faulted for maintaining his stand. Besides, this Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court over matters involving weight of evidence in certiorari cases (Padilla v. Commission on Elections, July 9, 1985, 137 SCRA 424).

It is too well-settled to need further elaboration, that the findings of fact of the trial court, if supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court (Talisay Employees & Laborers’ Association Et. Al. v. CIR Et. Al., G.R. No. 39844, July 31, 1986; People v. Monteverde, G.R. No. 60962, July 11, 1986; People v. Crus. G.R. No. L-68805, July 9, 1986; Director of Lands Et. Al. v. Funtilar, G.R. No. 68533, May 23, 1986; Legaspi v. CA Et. Al., L-45510, May 27, 1986).

That the findings of the trial court, in the case at bar, are based on substantial evidence is beyond question. The ruling of the trial court on this matter is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Indeed that the loan of P8,000.00 was defendant’s obligation, and/or was obtained from the bank for the benefit of the defendant, who received the aforementioned sum of money, is indubitably proven by the defendant’ own admission as indicated in plaintiff’s Exhibit "C." In this Exhibit, a letter addressed to the Bank on 5 August 1976, and signed by the defendant, he categorically admitted that the loan of P8,000.00 granted by the Philippine National Bank on November 22, 1974 was his account. This kind of evidence is admissible against the defendant (Sec. 22, Rule 130, Rules of Court), and correctly appreciated by the Court in its Decision (p. 2) against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff."cralaw virtua1aw library

Furthermore, as already shown above, petitioner himself personally received the loan money of P8,000.00.

Thus, as aforesaid findings are supported by unrefuted oral and documentary evidence, there appears to be no cogent reason to disturb the findings of fact of the trial court.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this petition is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed decision and order are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruz and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* Penned by Judge Pelagio S. Mandi.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1987 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47147 July 3, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENEN OLA

  • G.R. No. L-67472 July 3, 1987 - DARIO C. CABIGAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-48879-82 July 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO LASANAS

  • A.C. No. 2655 July 9, 1987 - LEONARD W. RICHARDS v. PATRICIO A. ASOY

  • G.R. No. L-49728 July 15, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO F. AUSAN

  • G.R. No. L-63438 July 15, 1987 - MANUEL OLONDRIZ, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-30637 July 16, 1987 - LIANGA BAY LOGGING, CO., INC. v. MANUEL L. ENAGE

  • G.R. No. L-60328 July 16, 1987 - KAPISANANG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGYAKAP v. NAT’L LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 76639 July 16, 1987 - EMILIO SY v. JUAN C. TUVERA

  • G.R. No. L-37007 July 20, 1987 - RAMON S. MILO v. ANGELITO C. SALANGA

  • G.R. No. L-69377 July 20, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER ALBOFERA

  • G.R. No. 71813 July 20, 1987 - ROSALINA P. ABELLA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-33050 July 23, 1987 - PABLO V. ZAGALA v. JOSE B. JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-33654 July 23, 1987 - MEYNARDO Q. JAMILIANO v. SERAFIN B. CUEVAS

  • G.R. No. L-35800 July 23, 1987 - ROSALINDA PA-AC v. ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-41171 July 23, 1987 - PATROCINIO BORROMEO-HERRERA v. FORTUNATO BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. L-46010 July 23, 1987 - CANDIDA B. MUNEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-46903 July 23, 1987 - BUHAY DE ROMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-50383 July 23, 1987 - PACKAGING PRODUCTS CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-56398 July 23, 1987 - ASIA WORLD PUBLISHING HOUSE, INC. v. BLAS OPLE

  • G.R. No. L-57338 July 23, 1987 - WILLIAM B. BORTHWICK v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. L-58292 July 23, 1987 - ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC. v. AUGUSTO M. AMORES

  • G.R. No. L-69303 July 23, 1987 - HEIRS OF MARIA MARASIGAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73008 July 23, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO A. BOHOLST

  • G.R. No. 76872 July 23, 1987 - WILFREDO S. TORRES v. NEPTALI A. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-78780 July 23, 1987 - DAVID G. NITAFAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.C. No. 1327 July 27, 1987 - RE: ATTY. OCTAVIO D. FULE

  • G.R. Nos. L-36906-07 July 27, 1987 - ISAAC O. TOLENTINO v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 71131-32 July 27, 1987 - REPUBLIC SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. 72316-17 July 27, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALMUDE LIZA

  • G.R. No. 76746 July 27, 1987 - DURABUILT RECAPPING PLANT & COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77918 July 27, 1987 - FRANCISCO LECAROZ v. JAIME N. FERRER

  • G.R. No. L-46591 July 28, 1987 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. MIGUEL NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-49162 July 28, 1987 - JANICE MARIE JAO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-54045 July 28, 1987 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EDUARDO R. BENGZON

  • G.R. No. L-56614 July 28, 1987 - ROMAN SANTOS, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-71768 July 28, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO TANAMAN

  • G.R. No. L-32621 July 29, 1987 - ASSOC. OF BAPTISTS FOR WORLD EVANGELISM, INC. v. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH

  • G.R. No. L-51306 July 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CAMAY

  • G.R. No. L-51369 July 29, 1987 - MODESTA BADILLO v. CLARITA FERRER

  • G.R. No. 74041 July 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO T. LIGON

  • G.R. Nos. 77317-50 July 29, 1987 - MADID MACAGA-AN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-58651 July 30, 1987 - VIRGINIA T. VELASCO v. GRACIANO P. GAYAPA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-63132 July 30, 1987 - ELIAS S. MENDOZA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 71907 July 30, 1987 - EDI-STAFF BUILDERS INTERNATIONAL v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 72727 July 30, 1987 - BENITO DILAG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. 74485-86 July 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN GARUFIL

  • G.R. No. 77353 July 30, 1987 - ASSOCIATED BANK v. ARSENIO M. GONONG

  • A.M. No. R-181-P July 31, 1987 - ADELIO C. CRUZ v. QUITERIO L. DALISAY

  • G.R. No. L-31681 July 31, 1987 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BR. XII

  • G.R. No. L-31974 July 31, 1987 - NICOLAS LEYTE v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-47521 July 31, 1987 - CAROLINA CLEMENTE v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-46724 July 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO SERANTE

  • G.R. No. L-47661 July 31, 1987 - JUANITO CARIÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-48672 July 31, 1987 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-49703 July 31, 1987 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON R. FLOJO

  • G.R. No. L-58781 July 31, 1987 - TEOFILO MAGNO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-58831 July 31, 1987 - ALFREDO R. CORNEJO, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-63862 July 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ANDAYA

  • G.R. No. L-65211 July 31, 1987 - EDGARDO P. TOLEDO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-66186 July 31, 1987 - AMANCIO SESE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-66419 July 31, 1987 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. IVAN MENDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-67583 July 31, 1987 - BASILISA S. ESCONDE v. SAMILO N. BARLONGAY

  • G.R. No. L-69542 July 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO AUDITOR

  • G.R. No. L-69901 July 31, 1987 - ANTONIO RAMON ONGSIAKO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 70287 July 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO B. RUALO

  • G.R. No. 70648 July 31, 1987 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-72301 July 31, 1987 - ROLANDO PONSICA, ET AL. v. EMILIO M. IGNALAGA

  • G.R. No. L-72555 July 31, 1987 - TABACALERA INSURANCE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74007 July 31, 1987 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. MINISTER OF LABOR.

  • G.R. No. 74289 July 31, 1987 - GOLDEN GATE REALTY CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74562 July 31, 1987 - PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74625 July 31, 1987 - MATEO P. FRANCISCO v. PELAGIO S. MANDI

  • G.R. No. 75380 July 31, 1987 - VICTORIA M. TOLENTINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 76273 July 31, 1987 - FEU-DR. NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDATION v. CRESENCIANO TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 78164 July 31, 1987 - TERESITA TABLARIN, ET AL. v. ANGELINA S. GUTIERREZ