SECOND DIVISION
PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
(NOW
FIRST
INTERNATIONAL
BANK),
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
115324
February 19, 2003
-versus-
HON. COURT OF
APPEALS
AND FRANKLIN VIVES,
Respondents. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CALLEJO,
SR., J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is a petition
for review on certiorari of
the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals dated June 25, 1991 in CA-G.R. CV No. 11791 and
of its Resolution[2]
dated May 5, 1994, denying the motion for reconsideration of said
decision
filed by petitioner Producers Bank of the Philippines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sometime in 1979, private
respondent Franklin Vives was asked by his neighbor and friend Angeles
Sanchez to help her friend and townmate, Col. Arturo Doronilla, in
incorporating
his business, the Sterela Marketing and Services ("Sterela" for
brevity).
Specifically, Sanchez asked private respondent to deposit in a bank a
certain
amount of money in the bank account of Sterela for purposes of its
incorporation.
She assured private respondent that he could withdraw his money from
said
account within a month’s time. Private respondent asked Sanchez to
bring
Doronilla to their house so that they could discuss Sanchez’s request.[3]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 9, 1979, private
respondent, Sanchez, Doronilla and a certain Estrella Dumagpi,
Doronilla’s
private secretary, met and discussed the matter. Thereafter, relying on
the assurances and representations of Sanchez and Doronilla, private
respondent
issued a check in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00)
in favor of Sterela. Private respondent instructed his wife, Mrs.
Inocencia
Vives, to accompany Doronilla and Sanchez in opening a savings account
in the name of Sterela in the Buendia, Makati branch of Producers Bank
of the Philippines. However, only Sanchez, Mrs. Vives and Dumagpi went
to the bank to deposit the check. They had with them an authorization
letter
from Doronilla authorizing Sanchez and her companions, "in coordination
with Mr. Rufo Atienza," to open an account for Sterela Marketing
Services
in the amount of P200,000.00. In opening the account, the authorized
signatories
were Inocencia Vives and/or Angeles Sanchez. A passbook for Savings
Account
No. 10-1567 was thereafter issued to Mrs. Vives.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Subsequently, private
respondent learned that Sterela was no longer holding office in the
address
previously given to him. Alarmed, he and his wife went to the Bank to
verify
if their money was still intact. The bank manager referred them to Mr.
Rufo Atienza, the assistant manager, who informed them that part of the
money in Savings Account No. 10-1567 had been withdrawn by Doronilla,
and
that only P90,000.00 remained therein. He likewise told them that Mrs.
Vives could not withdraw said remaining amount because it had to answer
for some postdated checks issued by Doronilla. According to Atienza,
after
Mrs. Vives and Sanchez opened Savings Account No. 10-1567, Doronilla
opened
Current Account No. 10-0320 for Sterela and authorized the Bank to
debit
Savings Account No. 10-1567 for the amounts necessary to cover
overdrawings
in Current Account No. 10-0320. In opening said current account,
Sterela,
through Doronilla, obtained a loan of P175,000.00 from the Bank. To
cover
payment thereof, Doronilla issued three postdated checks, all of which
were dishonored. Atienza also said that Doronilla could assign or
withdraw
the money in Savings Account No. 10-1567 because he was the sole
proprietor
of Sterela.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondent tried
to get in touch with Doronilla through Sanchez. On June 29, 1979, he
received
a letter from Doronilla, assuring him that his money was intact and
would
be returned to him. On August 13, 1979, Doronilla issued a postdated
check
for Two Hundred Twelve Thousand Pesos (P212,000.00) in favor of private
respondent. However, upon presentment thereof by private respondent to
the drawee bank, the check was dishonored. Doronilla requested private
respondent to present the same check on September 15, 1979 but when the
latter presented the check, it was again dishonored.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondent referred
the matter to a lawyer, who made a written demand upon Doronilla for
the
return of his client’s money. Doronilla issued another check for
P212,000.00
in private respondent’s favor but the check was again dishonored for
insufficiency
of funds.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondent instituted
an action for recovery of sum of money in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC)
in Pasig, Metro Manila against Doronilla, Sanchez, Dumagpi and
petitioner.
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 44485. He also filed criminal
actions
against Doronilla, Sanchez and Dumagpi in the RTC. However, Sanchez
passed
away on March 16, 1985 while the case was pending before the trial
court.
On October 3, 1995, the RTC of Pasig, Branch 157, promulgated its
Decision
in Civil Case No. 44485, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
judgment is hereby rendered sentencing defendants Arturo J. Doronila,
Estrella
Dumagpi and Producers Bank of the Philippines to pay plaintiff Franklin
Vives jointly and severally -chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) the
amount
of P200,000.00, representing the money deposited, with interest at the
legal rate from the filing of the complaint until the same is fully
paid;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) the sum of
P50,000.00
for moral damages and a similar amount for exemplary damages;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) the amount of
P40,000.00
for attorney’s fees; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) the costs of the
suit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner appealed
the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision
dated
June 25, 1991, the appellate court affirmed in toto the decision of the
RTC.[9]
It likewise denied with finality petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration
in its Resolution dated May 5, 1994.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 30, 1994, petitioner
filed the present petition, arguing that -chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE
DEFENDANT
DORONILLA AND RESPONDENT VIVES WAS ONE OF SIMPLE LOAN AND NOT
ACCOMMODATION;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT PETITIONER’S BANK MANAGER, MR. RUFO
ATIENZA, CONNIVED WITH THE OTHER DEFENDANTS IN DEFRAUDING PETITIONER
(Sic.
Should be PRIVATE RESPONDENT) AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE PETITIONER
SHOULD
BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED IN ADOPTING THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT
AND AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM, AS THE FINDINGS OF THE
REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURT WERE BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS; chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IV.
THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE CITED DECISION IN SALUDARES VS.
MARTINEZ, 29 SCRA 745, UPHOLDING THE LIABILITY OF AN EMPLOYER FOR ACTS
COMMITTED BY AN EMPLOYEE IS APPLICABLE;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
V.
THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT THAT
HEREIN
PETITIONER BANK IS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH THE OTHER
DEFENDANTS
FOR THE AMOUNT OF P200,000.00 REPRESENTING THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT DEPOSIT,
P50,000.00 FOR MORAL DAMAGES, P50,000.00 FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES,
P40,000.00
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND THE COSTS OF SUIT.[11]chan
robles virtual law library
Private respondent filed
his Comment on September 23, 1994. Petitioner filed its Reply thereto
on
September 25, 1995. The Court then required private respondent to
submit
a rejoinder to the reply. However, said rejoinder was filed only on
April
21, 1997, due to petitioner’s delay in furnishing private respondent
with
copy of the reply[[12]and
several substitutions of counsel on the part of private respondent.[13]
On January 17, 2001, the Court resolved to give due course to the
petition
and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda.[14]
Petitioner filed its memorandum on April 16, 2001 while private
respondent
submitted his memorandum on March 22, 2001. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner contends
that the transaction between private respondent and Doronilla is a
simple
loan (mutuum) since all the elements of a mutuum are present: first,
what
was delivered by private respondent to Doronilla was money, a
consumable
thing; and second, the transaction was onerous as Doronilla was obliged
to pay interest, as evidenced by the check issued by Doronilla in the
amount
of P212,000.00, or P12,000 more than what private respondent deposited
in Sterela’s bank account.[15]
Moreover, the fact that private respondent sued his good friend Sanchez
for his failure to recover his money from Doronilla shows that the
transaction
was not merely gratuitous but "had a business angle" to it. Hence,
petitioner
argues that it cannot be held liable for the return of private
respondent’s
P200,000.00 because it is not privy to the transaction between the
latter
and Doronilla.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It argues further that
petitioner’s Assistant Manager, Mr. Rufo Atienza, could not be faulted
for allowing Doronilla to withdraw from the savings account of Sterela
since the latter was the sole proprietor of said company. Petitioner
asserts
that Doronilla’s May 8, 1979 letter addressed to the bank, authorizing
Mrs. Vives and Sanchez to open a savings account for Sterela, did not
contain
any authorization for these two to withdraw from said account. Hence,
the
authority to withdraw therefrom remained exclusively with Doronilla,
who
was the sole proprietor of Sterela, and who alone had legal title to
the
savings account.[17]
Petitioner points out that no evidence other than the testimonies of
private
respondent and Mrs. Vives was presented during trial to prove that
private
respondent deposited his P200,000.00 in Sterela’s account for purposes
of its incorporation.[18]
Hence, petitioner should not be held liable for allowing Doronilla to
withdraw
from Sterela’s savings account.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner also asserts
that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision
since the findings of fact therein were not accord with the evidence
presented
by petitioner during trial to prove that the transaction between
private
respondent and Doronilla was a mutuum, and that it committed no wrong
in
allowing Doronilla to withdraw from Sterela’s savings account.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, petitioner
claims that since there is no wrongful act or omission on its part, it
is not liable for the actual damages suffered by private respondent,
and
neither may it be held liable for moral and exemplary damages as well
as
attorney’s fees.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondent,
on the other hand, argues that the transaction between him and
Doronilla
is not a mutuum but an accommodation,[21]
since he did not actually part with the ownership of his P200,000.00
and
in fact asked his wife to deposit said amount in the account of Sterela
so that a certification can be issued to the effect that Sterela had
sufficient
funds for purposes of its incorporation but at the same time, he
retained
some degree of control over his money through his wife who was made a
signatory
to the savings account and in whose possession the savings account
passbook
was given.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
He likewise asserts
that the trial court did not err in finding that petitioner, Atienza’s
employer, is liable for the return of his money. He insists that
Atienza,
petitioner’s assistant manager, connived with Doronilla in defrauding
private
respondent since it was Atienza who facilitated the opening of
Sterela’s
current account three days after Mrs. Vives and Sanchez opened a
savings
account with petitioner for said company, as well as the approval of
the
authority to debit Sterela’s savings account to cover any overdrawings
in its current account.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is no merit in
the petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the outset, it must
be emphasized that only questions of law may be raised in a petition
for
review filed with this Court. The Court has repeatedly held that it is
not its function to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence
presented
by the parties during trial.[24]
The Court’s jurisdiction is in principle limited to reviewing errors of
law that might have been committed by the Court of Appeals.[25]
Moreover, factual findings of courts, when adopted and confirmed by the
Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive on this Court unless these
findings
are not supported by the evidence on record.[26]
There is no showing of any misapprehension of facts on the part of the
Court of Appeals in the case at bar that would require this Court to
review
and overturn the factual findings of that court, especially since the
conclusions
of fact of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are not only
consistent
but are also amply supported by the evidence on record.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No error was committed
by the Court of Appeals when it ruled that the transaction between
private
respondent and Doronilla was a commodatum and not a mutuum. A
circumspect
examination of the records reveals that the transaction between them
was
a commodatum. Article 1933 of the Civil Code distinguishes between the
two kinds of loans in this wise:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By the contract of loan,
one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable
so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it,
in
which case the contract is called a commodatum; or money or other
consumable
thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and
quality
shall be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan or
mutuum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Commodatum is essentially
gratuitous.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Simple loan may be gratuitous
or with a stipulation to pay interest.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In commodatum, the bailor
retains the ownership of the thing loaned, while in simple loan,
ownership
passes to the borrower.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The foregoing provision
seems to imply that if the subject of the contract is a consumable
thing,
such as money, the contract would be a mutuum. However, there are some
instances where a commodatum may have for its object a consumable
thing.
Article 1936 of the Civil Code provides:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consumable goods may
be the subject of commodatum if the purpose of the contract is not the
consumption of the object, as when it is merely for exhibition.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, if consumable
goods are loaned only for purposes of exhibition, or when the intention
of the parties is to lend consumable goods and to have the very same
goods
returned at the end of the period agreed upon, the loan is a commodatum
and not a mutuum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rule is that the
intention of the parties thereto shall be accorded primordial
consideration
in determining the actual character of a contract.[27]
In case of doubt, the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the
parties
shall be considered in such determination.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As correctly pointed
out by both the Court of Appeals and the trial court, the evidence
shows
that private respondent agreed to deposit his money in the savings
account
of Sterela specifically for the purpose of making it appear "that said
firm had sufficient capitalization for incorporation, with the promise
that the amount shall be returned within thirty (30) days."[29]
Private respondent merely "accommodated" Doronilla by lending his money
without consideration, as a favor to his good friend Sanchez. It was
however
clear to the parties to the transaction that the money would not be
removed
from Sterela’s savings account and would be returned to private
respondent
after thirty (30) days.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Doronilla’s attempts
to return to private respondent the amount of P200,000.00 which the
latter
deposited in Sterela’s account together with an additional P12,000.00,
allegedly representing interest on the mutuum, did not convert the
transaction
from a commodatum into a mutuum because such was not the intent of the
parties and because the additional P12,000.00 corresponds to the fruits
of the lending of the P200,000.00. Article 1935 of the Civil Code
expressly
states that "the bailee in commodatum acquires the use of the thing
loaned
but not its fruits." Hence, it was only proper for Doronilla to remit
to
private respondent the interest accruing to the latter’s money
deposited
with petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neither does the Court
agree with petitioner’s contention that it is not solidarily liable for
the return of private respondent’s money because it was not privy to
the
transaction between Doronilla and private respondent. The nature of
said
transaction, that is, whether it is a mutuum or a commodatum, has no
bearing
on the question of petitioner’s liability for the return of private
respondent’s
money because the factual circumstances of the case clearly show that
petitioner,
through its employee Mr. Atienza, was partly responsible for the loss
of
private respondent’s money and is liable for its restitution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner’s rules for
savings deposits written on the passbook it issued Mrs. Vives on behalf
of Sterela for Savings Account No. 10-1567 expressly states that-
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"2. Deposits and
withdrawals
must be made by the depositor personally or upon his written authority
duly authenticated, and neither a deposit nor a withdrawal will be
permitted
except upon the production of the depositor savings bank book in which
will be entered by the Bank the amount deposited or withdrawn."[30]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Said rule
notwithstanding,
Doronilla was permitted by petitioner, through Atienza, the Assistant
Branch
Manager for the Buendia Branch of petitioner, to withdraw therefrom
even
without presenting the passbook (which Atienza very well knew was in
the
possession of Mrs. Vives), not just once, but several times. Both the
Court
of Appeals and the trial court found that Atienza allowed said
withdrawals
because he was party to Doronilla’s "scheme" of defrauding private
respondent:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
But the scheme could
not have been executed successfully without the knowledge, help and
cooperation
of Rufo Atienza, assistant manager and cashier of the Makati (Buendia)
branch of the defendant bank. Indeed, the evidence indicates that
Atienza
had not only facilitated the commission of the fraud but he likewise
helped
in devising the means by which it can be done in such manner as to make
it appear that the transaction was in accordance with banking procedure.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To begin with, the
deposit was made in defendant’s Buendia branch precisely because
Atienza
was a key officer therein. The records show that plaintiff had
suggested
that the P200,000.00 be deposited in his bank, the Manila Banking
Corporation,
but Doronilla and Dumagpi insisted that it must be in defendant’s
branch
in Makati for "it will be easier for them to get a certification". In
fact
before he was introduced to plaintiff, Doronilla had already prepared a
letter addressed to the Buendia branch manager authorizing Angeles B.
Sanchez
and company to open a savings account for Sterela in the amount of
P200,000.00,
as "per coordination with Mr. Rufo Atienza, Assistant Manager of the
Bank
x x x" (Exh. 1). This is a clear manifestation that the other
defendants
had been in consultation with Atienza from the inception of the scheme.
Significantly, there were testimonies and admission that Atienza is the
brother-in-law of a certain Romeo Mirasol, a friend and business
associate
of Doronilla.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Then there is the matter
of the ownership of the fund. Because of the "coordination" between
Doronilla
and Atienza, the latter knew before hand that the money deposited did
not
belong to Doronilla nor to Sterela. Aside from such foreknowledge, he
was
explicitly told by Inocencia Vives that the money belonged to her and
her
husband and the deposit was merely to accommodate Doronilla. Atienza
even
declared that the money came from Mrs. Vives.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Although the savings
account was in the name of Sterela, the bank records disclose that the
only ones empowered to withdraw the same were Inocencia Vives and
Angeles
B. Sanchez. In the signature card pertaining to this account (Exh. J),
the authorized signatories were Inocencia Vives &/or Angeles B.
Sanchez.
Atienza stated that it is the usual banking procedure that withdrawals
of savings deposits could only be made by persons whose authorized
signatures
are in the signature cards on file with the bank. He, however, said
that
this procedure was not followed here because Sterela was owned by
Doronilla.
He explained that Doronilla had the full authority to withdraw by
virtue
of such ownership. The Court is not inclined to agree with Atienza. In
the first place, he was all the time aware that the money came from
Vives
and did not belong to Sterela. He was also told by Mrs. Vives that they
were only accommodating Doronilla so that a certification can be issued
to the effect that Sterela had a deposit of so much amount to be sued
in
the incorporation of the firm. In the second place, the signature of
Doronilla
was not authorized in so far as that account is concerned inasmuch as
he
had not signed the signature card provided by the bank whenever a
deposit
is opened. In the third place, neither Mrs. Vives nor Sanchez had given
Doronilla the authority to withdraw.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the transfer
of fund was done without the passbook having been presented. It is an
accepted
practice that whenever a withdrawal is made in a savings deposit, the
bank
requires the presentation of the passbook. In this case, such
recognized
practice was dispensed with. The transfer from the savings account to
the
current account was without the submission of the passbook which
Atienza
had given to Mrs. Vives. Instead, it was made to appear in a
certification
signed by Estrella Dumagpi that a duplicate passbook was issued to
Sterela
because the original passbook had been surrendered to the Makati branch
in view of a loan accommodation assigning the savings account (Exh. C).
Atienza, who undoubtedly had a hand in the execution of this
certification,
was aware that the contents of the same are not true. He knew that the
passbook was in the hands of Mrs. Vives for he was the one who gave it
to her. Besides, as assistant manager of the branch and the bank
official
servicing the savings and current accounts in question, he also was
aware
that the original passbook was never surrendered. He was also cognizant
that Estrella Dumagpi was not among those authorized to withdraw so her
certification had no effect whatsoever.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The circumstance surrounding
the opening of the current account also demonstrate that Atienza’s
active
participation in the perpetration of the fraud and deception that
caused
the loss. The records indicate that this account was opened three days
later after the P200,000.00 was deposited. In spite of his disclaimer,
the Court believes that Atienza was mindful and posted regarding the
opening
of the current account considering that Doronilla was all the while in
"coordination" with him. That it was he who facilitated the approval of
the authority to debit the savings account to cover any overdrawings in
the current account (Exh. 2) is not hard to comprehend.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clearly Atienza had
committed wrongful acts that had resulted to the loss subject of this
case.
x x x.[31]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Article 2180 of
the Civil Code, employers shall be held primarily and solidarily liable
for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks. To hold the employer liable under this provision, it
must
be shown that an employer-employee relationship exists, and that the
employee
was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the act
complained
of was committed.[32]
Case law in the United States of America has it that a corporation that
entrusts a general duty to its employee is responsible to the injured
party
for damages flowing from the employee’s wrongful act done in the course
of his general authority, even though in doing such act, the employee
may
have failed in its duty to the employer and disobeyed the latter’s
instructions.[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is no dispute
that Atienza was an employee of petitioner. Furthermore, petitioner did
not deny that Atienza was acting within the scope of his authority as
Assistant
Branch Manager when he assisted Doronilla in withdrawing funds from
Sterela’s
Savings Account No. 10-1567, in which account private respondent’s
money
was deposited, and in transferring the money withdrawn to Sterela’s
Current
Account with petitioner. Atienza’s acts of helping Doronilla, a
customer
of the petitioner, were obviously done in furtherance of petitioner’s
interests[34]
even though in the process, Atienza violated some of petitioner’s rules
such as those stipulated in its savings account passbook.[35]
It was established that the transfer of funds from Sterela’s savings
account
to its current account could not have been accomplished by Doronilla
without
the invaluable assistance of Atienza, and that it was their connivance
which was the cause of private respondent’s loss.cralaw:red
The foregoing shows
that the Court of Appeals correctly held that under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code, petitioner is liable for private respondent’s loss and is
solidarily
liable with Doronilla and Dumagpi for the return of the P200,000.00
since
it is clear that petitioner failed to prove that it exercised due
diligence
to prevent the unauthorized withdrawals from Sterela’s savings account,
and that it was not negligent in the selection and supervision of
Atienza.
Accordingly, no error was committed by the appellate court in the award
of actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs of
suit
to private respondent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals are AFFIRMED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo,
J., (Chairman)
,
Mendoza, Quisumbing and Austria-Martinez,
JJ.
,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Justice Asaali S. Isnani, Ponente, with Justices Rodolfo A. Nocon,
Presiding
Justice, and Antonio M. Martinez, concurring.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 54-55.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 37-38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 63.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 35-47.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 54-55.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 18-19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 148, 181.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 176, 199.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at 227.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id. at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id. at 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id. at 24-27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id. at 23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id. at 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Rollo, Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 13-14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id. at 11-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Rollo, p. 75; Private respondent’s Memorandum, pp. 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id. at 75-77; Id. at 12-16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Flores v. Uy, G.R. No. 121492, October 26, 2001; Lim v. People, G.R.
No.
143231, October 26, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Section 1, Rule 45, Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Bañas, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 259 (2000); Philippine
National Construction Corporation v. Mars Construction Enterprises,
Inc.,
325 SCRA 624 (2000).
[27]
Tanguilig v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 78, 83-84 (1997), citing
Kasilag
v. Rodriguez, 69 Phil. 217; 17A Am Jur 2d 27 Contracts, § 5,
citing
Wallace Bank & Trust Co. v. First National Bank, 40 Idaho 712, 237
P 284, 50 ALR 316.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Tanguilig v. Court of Appeals, supra, p. 84.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Rollo, pp. 40-41, 60.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Exhibit [B,] Folder of Exhibits, p. 3, mphasis supplied.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Rollo, pp. 43-47, citing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, pp.
5-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Castilex Industrial Corporation v. Vasquez, Jr., 321 SCRA 393 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
18B Am Jur 2d, p. 947, Corporations § 2125, citing Pittsburgh,
C.C.
& S.L.R. Co. v. Sullivan, 40 NE 138.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
See note 31.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Exhibit [B,] Folder of Exhibits, p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |