October 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > October 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181698 : October 06, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS V. ENRICO M. LIMJOCO AND OSCAR DEUS :
[G.R. No. 181698 : October 06, 2010]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS V. ENRICO M. LIMJOCO AND OSCAR DEUS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 October 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 181698 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT Of PUBLIC WORKS and HIGHWAYS v. ENRICO M. LIMJOCO and OSCAR DEUS). - Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari,[1] under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals dated June 27, 2007 in CA-GR. CV No. 82919, which affirmed the Decision dated May 7, 2004, of Branch 33 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila: and the Resolution[3] dated January 23, 2008, which denied the motion for reconsideration thereof.
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), prays that respondents' Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages be dismissed, arguing that the principle of quantum meruit cannot be applied in the present case. Petitioner contends that the basis for payment under quantum meruit was not sufficiently established as respondents failed to prove that benefits were received by the public at large from the construction projects alleged to have been done by them. Petitioner avers that respondents failed to prove that said projects were completed and accepted by petitioner and that the same was inspected by authorized DPWH officials. Further, the monetary award made by the RTC and the Court of Appeals cannot represent the reasonable value of the project as the alleged project was buried under tons of lahar almost immediately upon its alleged completion.
Petitioner further questions the imposition of interest and award of attorney's fees in favor of respondents by the RTC which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, contending that the same was made without factual and legal basis. Petitioner asserts that this issue was included in the second argument of petitioner in its appellant's brief as an adjunct to the main award/claim.
Acting on the Petition, together with the Comment[4] filed by-respondents dated August 11, 2008 and the Reply[5] thereto filed by petitioner, dated December 4, 2008, the Court resolves to deny the petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Indeed, we agree with respondents in averring that the issue in the application of the doctrine of quantum meruit in the present case has already been aptly settled by the RTC which finding was extensively discussed and passed upon by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Decision. Hence, factual in nature, which is not proper as subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
It is a well-entrenched rule that this Court is not a trier of facts.[6] This Court will not pass upon the findings of fact of the trial court, especially if they have been affirmed on appeal by the appellate court.[7] Unless the case falls under the recognized exceptions,[8] the rule should not be disturbed.
In the present case, the findings of the RTC, as well as the appellate court are properly supported by evidence on record. Moreover, petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that the present case falls under any of the recognized exceptions. Hence, this Court finds no reason to deviate from heretofore cited rule.
Anent the issue on the propriety of the imposition of interest and award of Attorney's fees, the same found its way only for the first time in its "Motion for Reconsideration" of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner failed to raise said issue in its appeal and thus, could no longer be considered by this Court as to do so would be offensive to the basic rule of fair play, justice and due process.[9] Verily, citing the case decided by this Court in Manila Bay Club Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[10] we agree with the Court of Appeals in ruling over the matter in this wise:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. Carpio and A bad, JJ, on official leave; Velasco, Jr. and Sereno, JJ., designated additional members per S.O. Nos. 897 and 903, respectively.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 181698 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT Of PUBLIC WORKS and HIGHWAYS v. ENRICO M. LIMJOCO and OSCAR DEUS). - Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari,[1] under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals dated June 27, 2007 in CA-GR. CV No. 82919, which affirmed the Decision dated May 7, 2004, of Branch 33 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila: and the Resolution[3] dated January 23, 2008, which denied the motion for reconsideration thereof.
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), prays that respondents' Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages be dismissed, arguing that the principle of quantum meruit cannot be applied in the present case. Petitioner contends that the basis for payment under quantum meruit was not sufficiently established as respondents failed to prove that benefits were received by the public at large from the construction projects alleged to have been done by them. Petitioner avers that respondents failed to prove that said projects were completed and accepted by petitioner and that the same was inspected by authorized DPWH officials. Further, the monetary award made by the RTC and the Court of Appeals cannot represent the reasonable value of the project as the alleged project was buried under tons of lahar almost immediately upon its alleged completion.
Petitioner further questions the imposition of interest and award of attorney's fees in favor of respondents by the RTC which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, contending that the same was made without factual and legal basis. Petitioner asserts that this issue was included in the second argument of petitioner in its appellant's brief as an adjunct to the main award/claim.
Acting on the Petition, together with the Comment[4] filed by-respondents dated August 11, 2008 and the Reply[5] thereto filed by petitioner, dated December 4, 2008, the Court resolves to deny the petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Indeed, we agree with respondents in averring that the issue in the application of the doctrine of quantum meruit in the present case has already been aptly settled by the RTC which finding was extensively discussed and passed upon by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Decision. Hence, factual in nature, which is not proper as subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
It is a well-entrenched rule that this Court is not a trier of facts.[6] This Court will not pass upon the findings of fact of the trial court, especially if they have been affirmed on appeal by the appellate court.[7] Unless the case falls under the recognized exceptions,[8] the rule should not be disturbed.
In the present case, the findings of the RTC, as well as the appellate court are properly supported by evidence on record. Moreover, petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that the present case falls under any of the recognized exceptions. Hence, this Court finds no reason to deviate from heretofore cited rule.
Anent the issue on the propriety of the imposition of interest and award of Attorney's fees, the same found its way only for the first time in its "Motion for Reconsideration" of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner failed to raise said issue in its appeal and thus, could no longer be considered by this Court as to do so would be offensive to the basic rule of fair play, justice and due process.[9] Verily, citing the case decided by this Court in Manila Bay Club Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[10] we agree with the Court of Appeals in ruling over the matter in this wise:
x x x If well-recognized jurisprudence precludes raising an issue for the first time on appeal proper, with more reason should such issue be disallowed or disregarded when initially raised only in a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the appellate court. Here, a perusal of the brief filed by defendant-appellant reveals that it never discussed the issue of interest fees and attorney's fees prior to the instant motion. Thus, it is now precluded from asserting the same.[11]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. Carpio and A bad, JJ, on official leave; Velasco, Jr. and Sereno, JJ., designated additional members per S.O. Nos. 897 and 903, respectively.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 14-54.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Associate Justices Manna L Buzon and Rosmari D Carandang, concurring; id. at 57-77.
[3] Id. at 79-80.
[4] Rollo, pp. 118-160.
[5] Id. at 274-291.
[6] Western Shipyard Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 410 Phil 503, 512 (2001).
[7] Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Macalinao, G.R. No. 141856, February 11, 2005, 451 SCRA 63.68.
[8] Recognized exceptions to this rule are: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellee and the appellant; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Langkaan Realty Development Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 139437, December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA 542).
[9] Baluyut v. Pobtete, G.R. No. 144435, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 3707 379.
[10] 319 Phil. 413, 420 (1995).
[11] Rollo, p. 80.
