Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 153271 : September 22, 2008] L.E. LEDONIO ENTERPRISES, INC., PETITIONER VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND INDUSTRIAL CONTAINER CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 22 September 2008:

G.R. No. 153271 - L.E. LEDONIO ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner versus COURT OF APPEALS and INDUSTRIAL CONTAINER CORPORATION, respondents.

This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision^[1] dated April 10, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 61010, which had affirmed the Decision^[2] dated February 19, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 7, in Civil Case No. 93-64103.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Sometime in 1990, petitioner L.E. Ledonio Enterprises, Inc. ordered and received from respondent Industrial Container Corporation corrugated cartons valued at P63,604.70. In payment thereof, petitioner issued three checks with a total value of P63,604.70. All these checks were, however, dishonored due to insufficient funds. Subsequently, petitioner returned some of the cartons valued at P17,740.70 and issued another check for the amount of P5,000 as partial payment of its obligation. Petitioner thus left an unpaid balance of P40,864.00.^[3]

On February 15, 1992, respondent's lawyer sent a demand letter^[4] to the petitioner. In answer, petitioner not only acknowledged its unpaid account of P40,864.00 but also offered to pay the same with goods such as children's wear and ladies' blouses.^[5] Respondent formally informed  petitioner of its rejection of the said offer. Petitioner having failed to pay the balance of its obligation, respondent hired the services of a lawyer and filed with the RTC a Complaint^[6] on January 15, 1993, for a sum of money with damages.

The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent and disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE and considering the foregoing, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff Industrial Container Corp. and against defendant L.E. Ledonio Enterprises ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff:

1. The sum of P500.00 as actual and compensatory damages;
   
   
2. The sum of P40,864.00, the value of the goods received by defendant and still unpaid;
   
   
3. Interest at the rate of 12% due on the principal sum counted from date of first formal demand on October 22, 1990;
   
   
4. The sum of P5,000.00 for and as attorney's fees; and
   
   
5. Costs of the suit.
   

SO ORDERED.^[7]

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court by reducing the interest imposed from 12% to 6% and affirmed the rest of the award. It disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, modified as thus indicated, the judgment appealed from is, in all other respects, AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.^[8]

In the instant petition for review, petitioner raises the following issue:

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA.^[9]

Petitioner contends that respondent failed to prove its affirmative allegations in the complaint; that it was not able to present any purchase order or contract to establish the fact that it delivered to petitioner such number and type of cartons on a certain date.

The petition has no merit.

Section 1^[10] of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that the petition shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The present petition does not raise any question of law. The issue raised by petitioner concerns questions of facts and the sufficiency and weight of the evidence presented before the trial court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and generally does not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals.^[11] There are exceptions to this general rule, but petitioner did not show that this case is one of them. Factual findings of the trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon us and, generally, will not be reviewed on appeal.^[12]

At any rate, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the decision of the trial court. Indeed, the uncontroverted testimony of Remedios S. Goquil shows that petitioner entered into a contract for the purchase of the subject cartons from respondent.

Article 1458  of the Civil Code provides:

By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.

In the present case, respondent has performed its obligation and has delivered the subject cartons to the petitioner. Petitioner received and accepted the subject cartons without protest. Under the provision quoted above, petitioner has the obligation to pay to respondent the sum of P63,604.70, which is the price certain in money of the cartons. The evidence of respondent further shows that petitioner partially settled only the amount of P22,740.70 by returning cartons worth P17,740.70 and paying a good check in the sum of P5,000.00. In its reply to the February 15, 1992 demand letter, petitioner acknowledged its unpaid account in the amount of P40,864.00 and offered to settle the same in the form of goods. This act constitutes evidence^[13] against petitioner which shows that it is still obligated towards respondent for the amount of P40,864.00.

With regard to the award by the trial court of P500.00 as damages, we find no reason to disturb the same as it finds support in the testimony of Amado Valmoria Ching.

Finally, being in accord with jurisprudence, we sustain the modification made by the Court of Appeals of reducing the interest to be imposed on the sum of P40,864.00 from 12% to 6% per annum. Said interest is to be computed from the date of first demand on October 22, 1990 until the judgment becomes final and executory.^[14] From such finality until its satisfaction the interest on the entire amount due shall be computed at 12% per annum.^[15]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 10, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 61010 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 33-40. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes (now a member of this Court) and Mariano C. Del Castillo concurring.

^[2] Id. at 25-32. Penned by Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas.

^[3] Id. at 25-26.

^[4] Records, p. 8.

^[5] Id. at 9.

^[6] Id. at 1-3.

^[7] Rollo, pp. 31-32.

^[8] Id. at 40.

^[9] Id. at 13.

^[10] SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.-A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

^[11] Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Querimit, G.R. No. 148582, January 16, 2002, 373 SCRA 665, 670; Centeno v. Viray, G.R. No. 141592, November 21, 2002, 392 SCRA 349, 354.

^[12] Centeno v. Viray, id.

^[13] RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 26.

SEC. 26. Admissions of a party. - The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

^[14] Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127135, January 18, 2000, 322 SCRA 73, 78.

^[15] Id. at 79.