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
 

   
March-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 51765 March 3, 1997 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. ENRIQUE A. AGANA, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93397 March 3, 1997 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99425 March 3, 1997 - ANTONIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100487 & 100607 March 3, 1997 - ARTURO JULIANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106581 March 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110419 March 3, 1997 - UERM-MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114383 March 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL COREA

  • G.R. No. 116437 March 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO ANDAN

  • G.R. No. 117161 March 3, 1997 - RAMON INGLES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120704 March 3, 1997 - BARTOLOME C. CARALE, ET AL. v. PAMPIO A. ABARINTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123321 March 3, 1997 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123361 March 3, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125198 March 3, 1997 - MSCI-NACUSIP v. NWPC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84449 March 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO JAVIER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102876 March 4, 1997 - BATAAN SHIPYARD AND ENG’G CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118607 March 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO FRANCO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1335 March 5, 1997 - INOCENCIO BASCO v. LEO H. RAPATALO

  • G.R. No. 126576 March 5, 1997 - RICARDO M. ANGOBUNG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83598 March 7, 1997 - LEONCIA BALOGBOG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94994-95 March 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LILIBETH CACO

  • G.R. No. 106212 March 7, 1997 - PROGRESS HOMES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108395 March 7, 1997 - HEIRS OF TEODORO GUARING, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108604-10 March 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO A. BURCE

  • G.R. No. 113420 March 7, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113905 March 7, 1997 - LEOPOLDO ALICBUSAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116211 March 7, 1997 - MEYNARDO POLICARPIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116512 March 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM O. CASIDO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1353 March 11, 1997 - DANILO B. PARADA v. LORENZO B. VENERACION

  • G.R. No. 127066 March 11, 1997 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117169 March 12, 1997 - PHILTREAD WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. NIEVES R. CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121917 March 12, 1997 - ROBIN CARIÑO PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 99301 & 99343 March 13, 1997 - VICTOR KIERULF, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100333 March 13, 1997 - HILARIO MAGCALAS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103611 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR HERBIETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107131 March 13, 1997 - NFD INT’L. MANNING AGENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108454 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEDDY QUINAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109779 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR MAÑOZCA

  • G.R. No. 110067 March 13, 1997 - LINDA T. ALMENDRAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111478 March 13, 1997 - GEORGE F. SALONGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111567 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO AVILLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116123 March 13, 1997 - SERGIO NAGUIAT, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116228 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO GAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116352 March 13, 1997 - J. & D.O. AGUILAR CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116596-98 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO TOPAGUEN

  • G.R. No. 117266 March 13, 1997 - CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VENTURA O. DUCAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117955-58 March 13, 1997 - HERMINIGILDO TOMARONG, ET AL. v. ANTONIO C. LUBGUBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119058 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDA VILLARAN

  • G.R. No. 120853 March 13, 1997 - RUDY ALMEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122427 March 13, 1997 - BENJAMIN LAZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123881 March 13, 1997 - VIVA PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91694 March 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABAS CALVO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97626 March 14, 1997 - PHIL. BANK OF COMMERCE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114387 March 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO DEVILLERES

  • G.R. No. 120592 March 14, 1997 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121765 March 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANDOLF B. MONTEALTO

  • G.R. No. 122646 March 14, 1997 - ADELIA C. MENDOZA v. ANGELITO C. TEH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112229 March 18, 1997 - RAYMOND PE LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114924-27 March 18, 1997 - DANTE NACURAY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119321 March 18, 1997 - CATALINO F. BAÑEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Bar Matter No. 712 March 19, 1997 - PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH

  • G.R. Nos. 100382-100385 March 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TABACO

  • G.R. No. 111157 March 19, 1997 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117029 March 19, 1997 - PELTAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121112 March 19, 1997 - FELICIDAD MIRANO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127325 March 19, 1997 - MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1159 March 20, 1997 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. WILLIAM C. SEVILLO

  • G.R. No. 88684 March 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LACBANES

  • G.R. No. 95551 March 20, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CONCEPCION S. ALARCON VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107019 March 20, 1997 - FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116404 March 20, 1997 - FRANCISCO LUNA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117218 March 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY NALANGAN

  • G.R. No. 119599 March 20, 1997 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127456 March 20, 1997 - JESUS A. JARIOL, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1091 March 21, 1997 - WILFREDO NAVARRO v. DEOGRACIAS K. DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 107699 March 21, 1997 - ALEX JACOBO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116692 March 21, 1997 - SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117097 March 21, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG OPTOMETRISTS SA PILIPINAS, ET AL. v. ACEBEDO INTL. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118436 March 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF MANUEL A. ROXAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118836 March 21, 1997 - FEDERICO DORDAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122728 March 21, 1997 - CASIANO A. ANGCHANGCO, JR. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123037 March 21, 1997 - TEODORO Q. PEÑA v. HRET, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1184 March 24, 1997 - NBI, ET AL. v. RODOLFO TULIAO

  • G.R. No. 106588 March 24, 1997 - RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-89-318 March 25, 1997 - LUCIANA Vda. DE ARAGO v. PATERNO T. ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 96229 March 25, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLORIOSA S. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. 124137 March 25, 1997 - ROY M. LOYOLA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126298 March 25, 1997 - PATRIA C. GUTIERREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99032 March 26, 1997 - RICARDO A. LLAMADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101817 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE IMMACULATA

  • G.R. No. 107801 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIA V. IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. 110613 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 113470 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CORBES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115951 March 26, 1997 - ZEBRA SECURITY AGENCY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117378 March 26, 1997 - GIL CAPILI, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117408 March 26, 1997 - NATIONAL INVESTMENT AND DEV. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117604 March 26, 1997 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118332 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121031 March 26, 1997 - ROSAURO I. TORRES v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122013 March 26, 1997 - JOSE C. RAMIREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124333 March 26, 1997 - NATIVIDAD P. ARAGON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119877 March 31, 1997 - BIENVENIDO ONGKINGCO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 113905   March 7, 1997 - LEOPOLDO ALICBUSAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 113905. March 7, 1997.]

    LEOPOLDO ALICBUSAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, CESAR S. CORDERO and BABY’S CANTEEN, Respondents.

    Bautista Picazo Buyco Tan & Fider for Petitioner.

    Trinidad Reverente Makalintal and Cabrera Law Offices for Private Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI; THE ISSUES RAISED IN CASE AT BAR ARE FACTUAL MATTERS WHICH BY WEIGHT OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CANNOT BE INQUIRED INTO BY THE COURT IN AN APPEAL ON CERTIORARI. — At the core of petitioner’s assigned errors is the issue of whether or not there is still a partnership between petitioner and respondent Cordero. Evidently, this issue, as well as the other points raised by petitioner, are factual matters which by the weight of judicial precedents cannot be inquired into by this Court in an appeal on certiorari. This Court can no longer be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the trial court and the appellate court were correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence of one party or the other.

    2. ID.; EVIDENCE; THE CALIBRATION AND APPRECIATION THEREOF ARE WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF BOTH THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS. — Petitioner faults the respondent court for disregarding the legal presumptions in favor of the validity of the deed of sale of his partnership rights, namely: (1) that private transactions have been fair and regular; (2) that the ordinary course of business has been followed; and (3) that there is sufficient consideration for a contract. He contends that contrary to the Rules of Evidence, respondent court shifted the burden of proof against his favor. These arguments are misplaced. Petitioner overlooks the fact that the presumption he invokes are mere presumptions juris tantum, these are disputable presumptions which can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. But as previously adverted, the calibration of these evidence and the relative weight accorded to them are within the exclusive domain of both the trial and appellate courts which cannot be set aside by this Court absent any showing that there is no evidence to support the conclusion drawn by the court a quo. In the instant case, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the record is replete with evidence establishing the fact that the deed of sale evidencing the transfer of rights in respondent Cordero’s favor was fictitious and simulated.

    3. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES; PROPER IN CASE AT BAR; REASONS. — On the propriety of the award of moral damages, we find no reason to set aside the same considering that both the Court of Appeals and the trial court found that petitioner acted in gross and evident bad faith in exercising his power and influence as president of Philtranco and caused the withholding of the remittances due to Baby’s Canteen from Philtranco. The award of attorney’s fees is also in order as a consequence of petitioner’s unjust refusal to settle private respondents’ just and lawful claim which constrained the latter to litigate in court.


    D E C I S I O N


    FRANCISCO, J.:


    As a result of the dismissal of his appeal by respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 34058, petitioner is now before this Court through this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking the reversal of respondent court’s decision dated October 29, 1993 and the resolution of February 4, 1994, which petitioner described as a "manifestly erroneous appreciation by the Court of Appeals of the rules of evidence, in particular the presumption contained therein and the proper party whose burden is to dispute them." 1

    The controversy stemmed from a complaint filed by private respondents Cesar Cordero and Baby’s Canteen against Leopoldo Alicbusan and Philippine Service Enterprises, Inc. before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.

    The circumstances which led to this suit as summarized in the assailed decision are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Plaintiff-appellee Cesar Cordero and defendant appellant Leopoldo Alicbusan were partners in the operation of Baby’s Canteen located in the Philtranco terminal in Pasay City. Under the terms of their partnership agreement, Cordero assumed the position of Managing Partner of the venture while Alicbusan took care of accounting, records keeping and other comptrollership functions (Exhibit ‘1’). The partnership was to exist for a fixed term, between July 1981 up to July 1984. However, on expiration of the said period both Cordero and appellant Alicbusan continued their relationship under the original term.

    "On May 11, 1990, plaintiff Cordero instituted Civil Case No. 7322 with the court below for collection for various sums totalling P209,497.36 which was later increased to P309,581.51 in a supplemental complaint (pp. 87-88, Rollo). The claim arose from an arrangement whereby employees of Philtranco were allowed to buy goods and other items from Baby’s Canteen on credit which payments were subsequently deducted by Philtranco from the employees’ salaries. The total amount was then remitted by Philtranco fifteen days later.

    "According to plaintiff-appellee Cordero, the remittances of salary deductions for the months of February, March, April up to May 15, 1990 were withheld by Philtranco on the instigation of herein appellant Leopoldo Alicbusan as President of said company (p. 88, Record). Plaintiff-appellee Cordero averred that the withholding of the remittances to Baby’s Canteen was motivated by bad faith on the part of appellant Alicbusan because of business differences arising from another partnership operation between plaintiff and appellant in Sariaya, Quezon (TSN, August 24. 1990, p. 7).

    "Additionally, in his supplemental complaint dated 29 June, 1990, plaintiff contended that defendant, in retaliation of (sic) appellee’s filing of the original complaint and in order to harass the latter, served notice of termination of lease of a stall leased by plaintiff’s wife (Stall No. 6) at the Philtranco Terminal in Malibay, Pasay City (p. 70, Record). According to plaintiff Cordero, all the other leaseholders of stalls in the terminal were not served notice of termination which showed that plaintiff’s wife was being singled out, in bad faith.

    "In response, defendant Alicbusan averred that he transferred all his rights and interests over Baby’s Canteen for the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00) as evidenced by a Deed of Sale and Transfer of Right (Record, p. 40) between the parties on April 5, 1989. Under the said deed, plaintiff-appellee Cordero bound himself to pay under the following terms:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘1. That the total purchase price shall be TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (P250,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency with a downpayment of P50,000.00 which the VENDEE/TRANSFEREE shall pay upon the signing of this agreement;

    ‘2. That the balance shall be payable in twenty (20) monthly installments at P10,000.00 per month, with postdated checks, the first installment being due with (sic) the first 5 days of every month thereafter until the balance shall have been fully paid.’

    "However, according to appellant Alicbusan, both parties subsequently agreed to forego the P50,000.00 downpayment under an amended schedule in which Cordero obligated himself to pay increased and accelerated installment payments (Record, p. 40). These payments totalling P90,500.00 were made between the 8th day of May, 1989 and November 24, 1989 in various amounts. According to appellant, plaintiff Cordero stopped paying his installment payments after this period in spite of several demands by the defendant (p. 41, Record)." 2

    In its decision dated February 7, 1991, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City ruled in favor of private respondents Cordero and Baby’s Canteen, upholding the continued existence of a partnership between respondent Cordero and petitioner, and ordered as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court orders:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    a) the defendant Philtranco to pay the plaintiffs the following amounts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1) P290,912.31, representing the credits for the months of February, March, April and up to May 15, 1990;

    2) P30,000.00 as moral damages for the bad faith displayed by their president Alicbusan;

    b) Defendant Alicbusan to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P30,000 as moral damages;

    c) Defendants Alicbusan and Philtranco to pay jointly and severally, the plaintiffs Cordero and Baby’s Canteen the amount of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees;

    d) As counterclaim of the defendant Philtranco, plaintiffs Cordero and Baby’s Canteen to pay the defendant Philtranco the amount of P24,000.00 as overdue rentals;

    e) Defendants Alicbusan and Philtranco to pay for the costs of this suit.

    SO ORDERED." 3

    Subsequently, respondent Cordero and Philtranco entered into a compromise agreement with respect to their liabilities to each other by offsetting their outstanding obligations and waiving whatever actions they may have against each other. It was however agreed upon that the compromise agreement will not affect or prejudice petitioner Alicbusan’s appeal from the judgment. 4

    For his part, Alicbusan proceeded to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals assailing the trial court’s finding that the deed of sale and transfer of rights between petitioner and Cordero was fictitious, hence their partnership continued to exist. Additionally, petitioner argued that respondent Cordero should have been ordered to pay the amount of P129,500.00 representing the balance of the sale of his rights in the partnership and that it was error to adjudge him liable for moral damages and attorney’s fees.

    On October 29, 1993, respondent Court rendered the assailed decision, affirming the judgment of the trial court that the deed of sale transferring petitioner’s rights in the partnership to private respondent Cordero was simulated and that petitioner acted in bad faith in withholding the remittances of Philtranco to the partnership enterprise. Thus, respondent court affirmed the award of moral damages as well as that of attorney’s fees in favor of private respondents, subject only to the modification that the latter award was reduced into half. Petitioner sought reconsideration but the same was denied in the resolution dated February 4, 1994.cralawnad

    Petitioner is now before this Court raising the same errors that it presented before the respondent court.

    At the core of petitioner’s assigned errors is the issue of whether or not there is still a partnership between petitioner and respondent Cordero. Evidently, this issue, as well as the other points raised by petitioner, are factual matters which by the weight of judicial precedents cannot be inquired into by this Court in an appeal on certiorari. This Court can no longer be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the trial court and the appellate court were correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence of one party or the other. 5

    Petitioner faults the respondent court for disregarding the legal presumptions in favor of the validity of the deed of sale of his partnership rights, namely: (1) that private transactions have been fair and regular, (2) that the ordinary course of business has been followed; and (3) that there is sufficient consideration for a contract. He contends that contrary to the Rules of Evidence, respondent court shifted the burden of proof against his favor.

    These arguments are misplaced. Petitioner overlooks the fact that the presumption he invokes are mere presumptions juris tantum, these are disputable presumptions which can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. But as previously adverted, the calibration of these evidence and the relative weight accorded to them are within the exclusive domain of both the trial and appellate courts which cannot be set aside by this Court absent any showing that there is no evidence to support the conclusion drawn by the court a quo. 6 In the instant case, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the record is replete with evidence establishing the fact that the deed of sale evidencing the transfer of rights in respondent Cordero’s favor was fictitious and simulated. This was amply confirmed by the following findings of respondent Court of Appeals, to which we are in complete accord:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . The fact of the matter is that the terms enumerated under the deed of sale were never complied with. Plaintiff Cordero never paid the Fifty Thousand Peso downpayment and defendant has adduced no evidence to show that the installments which plaintiff-appellee was supposed to have paid under the terms of the agreement were ever paid or tendered.

    "The Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights dated the 5th of April, 1989 stipulates the following terms and conditions: 1. a total purchase price of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P250,000.00); 2. Downpayment of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00); 3. Twenty monthly installments at P10,000.00 per month, payable through post-dated checks, the first installment due within the first five days of May and the succeeding installments being due within the first five days of every month thereafter until the balance shall have been fully paid (Exhibit ‘G’). In spite of the express conditions of sale, none of these were met and no post-dated checks were advanced. Instead, a series of checks of varying amounts — not TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) as stipulated in the disputed deed of sale — were issued by herein appellee, which the court below found to be dividends from the partnership profits. These checks were issued up to the fifth of January, 1990, long after both parties agreed to the alleged sale (p. 74, Rollo).

    "These events, together with the defendant’s apparent performance of his comptrollership functions after the deed was signed, militate against the defendant’s contention that the partnership was terminated on the 5th of April 1989. Based on the evidence at hand, defendant Alicbusan continued to oversee and check daily sales reports and vouchers. He was the approving authority as far as check vouchers were concerned. Furthermore, the evidence shows that he subsequently delegated this function to his wife (Exh.’H’, ‘H-1’; Exh.’I’, ‘I-1’; Exh.’J’). An Audit Report (Exh.’N’) carries notations and suggestions by defendant Alicbusan, which attached balance sheet dated June 30, 1989 lists the Partner’s capital as P42,362.00 each for LCA (identified as Leopoldo Alicbusan, see TSN, Aug. 24, 1990, p. 120) and CSC (identified as Cesar C. Cordero, herein plaintiff, ibid.), for a total partnership capital of P84,724.00. During this time, the defendant did not object to his inclusion in the report as a partner of Baby’s Canteen, which he would have if the sale were not simulated." 7

    Finally, on the propriety of the award of moral damages, we find no reason to set aside the same considering that both the Court of Appeals and the trial court found that petitioner acted in gross and evident bad faith in exercising his power and influence as president of Philtranco and caused the withholding of the remittances due to Baby’s Canteen from Philtranco. 8 The award of attorney’s fees is also in order as a consequence of petitioner’s unjust refusal to settle private respondents’ just and lawful claim which constrained the latter to litigate in court.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, p. 159.

    2. Decision, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 267-268.

    3. RTC Decision, p. 20; Record, p. 72.

    4. Decision, pp. 4-5, Rollo, pp. 271-272.

    5. Elayda v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 349 (1991); Medina v. Asistio, 191 SCRA 218 (1990); Fernan v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 546 (1990).

    6. Coronado, Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 814 (1990).

    7. CA Decision, pp. 7-8, Rollo, pp. 273-274.

    8. Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals, 223 SCRA 350 (1993); Pagsibigan v. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 202 (1993); Legaspi Oil Co., Inc. vs Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 213 (1993); and Manuel v. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 29 (1993).

    G.R. No. 113905   March 7, 1997 - LEOPOLDO ALICBUSAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, 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