ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 3745 October 2, 1995 - CYNTHIA B. ROSACIA v. BENJAMIN B. BULALACAO

  • G.R. No. 94702 October 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO ACUÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97143 October 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO FIGUEROA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1325 October 4, 1995 - PABLO ESPAÑOLA v. VINCENT EDEN C. PANAY

  • G.R. No. 102672 October 4, 1995 - PANAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118533 October 4, 1995 - PABLO R OLIVAREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • Adm. Case No. 4405 October 6, 1995 - BIENVENIDO SANCHEZ v. GALILEO P. BRION

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-972 October 6, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MA. GORGONIA L. FLORES

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1006 October 6, 1995 - LERMA CHUA MARTINEZ v. ALDO MUÑOZ

  • G.R. No. 76490 October 6, 1995 - ISAGANI SABINIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104604 & 111223 October 6, 1995 - NARCISO O. JAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110634 October 6, 1995 - RUFINO O. ESLAO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. Nos. 111206-08 October 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 116183 October 6, 1995 - RICARDO T. GLORIA v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 117092 October 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO C. LAO

  • G.R. Nos. 118712 & 118745 October 6, 1995 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 120319 October 6, 1995 - LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ASS’N. OF LUZON DEV’T. BANK EMPLOYEES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1033 October 10, 1995 - MARIBETH CORDOVA, ET AL. v. EMMA C. LABAYEN

  • G.R. No. 117732 October 10, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS C. SALILING

  • G.R. No. 93915 October 11, 1995 - AUGUSTO EVANGELISTA v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 99049 October 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO A. BARQUILLA

  • G.R. No. 117009 October 11, 1995 - SECURITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, ET AL., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118013-14 October 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMOSTHENES L. MAGALLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99263 October 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PACIFICO R. LAZARO

  • G.R. Nos. 119987-88 October 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO B. VENERACION

  • Adm. Case No. 4380 October 13, 1995 - NICANOR GONZALES, ET AL., v. MIGUEL SABACAJAN

  • G.R. No. 103911 October 13, 1995 - EDGARDO E. LOPEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 109373 & 112991 October 13, 1995 - PACIFIC BANKING CORP. EMPLOYEES ORG., ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110015 October 13, 1995 - MANILA BAY CLUB CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 107101 October 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLO S. RODICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108515 October 16, 1995 - LUIS BALANTAKBO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110053 October 16, 1995 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110544 October 17, 1995 - REYNALDO V. TUANDA, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 105649 October 18, 1995 - FLORO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111634 October 18, 1995 - KOMATSU INDUSTRIES (PHIL.), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116062 October 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO BANTISIL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 116462 October 18, 1995 - RENO FOODS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116910 October 18, 1995 - INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., ET. AL. v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114841-42 October 20, 1995 - ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103915 October 23, 1995 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTOR PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106477 October 23, 1995 - GLOBE GENERAL SERVICES AND SECURITY AGENCY, ET AL. v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 111837 October 24, 1995 - NEW YORK MARINE MANAGERS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112969-70 October 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO PADRE-E

  • G.R. No. 118584 October 24, 1995 - AURELIA S. GOMEZ v. PRESIDING JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120823 October 24, 1995 - HADJI HAMID PATORAY v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-716 October 25, 1995 - MA. BLYTH B. ABADILLA v. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-892 October 25, 1995 - SAN MANUEL WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. RAMON B. TUPAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-907 October 25, 1995 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL. v. JOSELITO SD. GENEROSO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-979 October 25, 1995 - EMERITO M. AGCAOILI v. ADOLFO B. MOLINA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1081 October 25, 1995 - VIRGINIA E. BURGOS v. JOSEFINA R. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 95573 October 25, 1995 - GSIS v. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99058 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIXBERTO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102976 October 25, 1995 - IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110815-16 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY SINATAO

  • G.R. No. 111688 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO @ "FELITOY" BRIOL, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 112713 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TAMPARONG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 108115 October 27, 1995 - PHILIPPINE SOAP BOX DERBY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117083 October 27, 1995 - LAZARO V. KAVINTA v. PRUDENCIO ALTRE CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112448 October 30, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115455, 115525, 115543, 115544, 115754, 115781, 115852, 115873 & 115931 October 30, 1995 - ARTURO M. TOLENTINO v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 95573   October 25, 1995 - GSIS v. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 95573. October 25, 1995.]

    GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM [GSIS], Petitioner, v. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ALBERTO L. FAJARDO, Respondents.

    The Government Corporate Counsel for Petitioner.

    Alejandro, Rola & Moralde for National Food Authority.


    SYLLABUS


    REMEDIAL LAW; PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI CAN ONLY RAISE ERRORS OF JURISDICTION. — Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation pose factual questions which this Court, as a rule, does not review in a petition for review on certiorari. The oft repeated rule is that petitions for review on certiorari can only raise errors of jurisdiction.


    D E C I S I O N


    PUNO, J.:


    This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City, Branch 86 petitioner Government (GSIS) and private respondent Alberto L. Fajardo to pay jointly and severally respondent National Food Authority (NFA) the amount of P56,666.67 plus twelve percent (12%) interest thereon per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until fully paid and dismissed petitioner’s cross-claim.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    On July 1, 1983, the NFA entered into a Contract of Palay Milling with Fajardo under which the former engaged the services of the latter to mill NFA palay into good regular milled rice.

    The deliveries of palay were received by Bernabe Rice Mill I and II. Both rice mills are owned by Rosalina Bernabe. Bernabe Rice Mill I was operated by Rosalina Bernabe, mother-in-law of Fajardo; while Bernabe Rice Mill II was operated by Adriano Golingan.

    The NFA required Fajardo to post bond. Fajardo secured from GSIS G (21) GIF Bond No. 00392 in the amount of P56,666.67 or which corresponds to thirty-three and one-half percent (33 1/2%) of the current market value of the 2,000 bags of palay to be received for milling. Fajardo in turn, executed an indemnity agreement in favor of GSIS.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    In the course of milling operation, covering the period from June to November 1983, Fajardo incurred a total shortage of 67,824.01 kilos of milled rice valued at P297,069.16. Likewise, Fajardo incurred a shortage in empty jute sacks amounting to P31,638.46.

    The NFA sent a letter to Fajardo dated July 4, 1984, demanding payment in the amount of P292,040.42 representing rice shortage. The NFA also made a demand dated August 3, 1984 upon GSIS on the bond issued by the latter.

    Another letter of demand dated April 2, 1985 was sent to Fajardo in connection with the milled rice and empty jute sack shortage. Fajardo made no response.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    The NFA filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against GSIS and Fajardo.

    In his Answer, Fajardo denied liability for shortage and attributed it to Rosalina Bernabe and Adriano Golingan.

    The GSIS also filed an answer with cross-claim against Fajardo based on the Indemnity Agreement.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision whose dispositive portion states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. defendant Alberto L. Fajardo and the GSIS, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff NFA, the amount of P56,666.67 plus 12% interest thereon per annum from date of filing of complaint until fully paid;

    2. defendant Alberto L. Fajardo to pay plaintiff the sum of P234,128.45 plus 12% interest thereon per annum from date of filing of complaint until fully paid;

    3. defendant Alberto L. Fajardo to pay plaintiff the sum of P31,638.46 plus 12% interest thereon from date of filing of complaint until fully paid;

    4. defendant Alberto L. Fajardo to pay plaintiff NFA the sum of P20,000.00, as exemplary damages;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    5. defendant Alberto L. Fajardo to pay plaintiff NFA the sum of P5,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees, plus costs of the suit.

    All other claims and counterclaims are hereby dismissed.

    SO ORDERED." chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    The Decision of the trial court was affirmed by the respondent Court of Appeals on June 29, 1990.

    In this petition, petitioner urges the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "IV REASONS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THIS PETITIONchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    1. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED THE CASE NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE, SUCH THAT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (A) It affirmed the decision of the Trial Court’s finding that petitioner is liable under the Surety Bond despite the fact that fraud and misrepresentation were duly proven to have been employed by obligor defendant Alberto L. Fajardo in securing and/or obtaining the Surety Bond;

    (B) It affirmed the decision of the Trial Court dismissing ‘all other claims and counterclaims’ despite the fact that the cross-claim of petitioner herein against defendant Alberto L. Fajardo had been pleaded and had been duly proven.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    2. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS DESPITE ITS OWN PRONOUNCEMENT THAT THE INDEMNITY AGREEMENT OF FAJARDO WITH THE GSIS IS VALID."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We find no merit in the first contention of petitioner. The liability of petitioner to the NFA pursuant to the bond it issued in favor of Fajardo is clear. The alleged fraud and misrepresentation perpetrated by Fajardo cannot be used by petitioner to avoid its undertaking with the NFA. Likewise, allegations of fraud and misrepresentation pose factual questions which this Court, as a rule, does not review a petition for review on certiorari. The oft repeated rule is that petitions for review on certiorari can only raise errors of jurisdiction.

    We, however, sustain petitioner’s contention that respondent court erred in dismissing its cross-claim against Fajardo. Respondent court itself found that the Indemnity Agreement between the petitioner and Fajardo is valid. The obligation of Fajardo to the petitioner under this Agreement is clearly spelled out, viz:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    "(b) INDEMNITY . — To indemnify the GSIS at its principal offices for any damages, prejudice, losses, costs, payments, advances and expenses of whatever kind and nature, including counsel for attorney’s fees, which the GSIS may at any time sustain or incur, as a consequence of having executed the above-mentioned Bond, its renewals, extensions or substitution and said attorney’s fees shall not be less than fifteen (15%) percent of the amount claimed by the GSIS in each action, the same to be due and payable, irrespective of whether the case is settled judicially or extra-judicially."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Fajardo did not assail the existence and due execution of this Indemnity Agreement. He is bound to comply with its term.

    IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision dated June 29, 1990 of the respondent court is modified. Private respondent Alberto L. Fajardo is hereby ordered to pay petitioner GSIS whatever amount the latter has been adjudged to pay NFA in Civil Case No. Q-44772. No costs.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 95573   October 25, 1995 - GSIS v. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED