September 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 155872 : September 07, 2011]
ROGELIO C. SANCHEZ, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "R. SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTION," PETITIONER, V. SPOUSES HITOTAKA TAKEMURA AND MARIA TERESA TAKEMURA, RESPONDENTS.
"G.R. No. 155872 - ROGELIO C SANCHEZ, doing business under the name and style "R. SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTION," Petitioner, v. SPOUSES HITOTAKA TAKEMURA and MARIA TERESA TAKEMURA, Respondents.cralaw
By a petition for review under Rule 45, the petitioner seeks the reversal of the adverse decision promulgated on April 3, 2002 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 56425.[1]
Antecedents
On September 7, 1990, the parties entered into a contract for the construction of the respondents' residential house on Kingsroad Street, Do�a Rita Village, Cebu City. They essentially agreed that: (a) the petitioner, as the contractor, "shall perform all the labor in a most acceptable manner, skilled workmen and workmanship, subject to the owners' (respondents) approval;" (b) the petitioner "shall give his personal superintendence" and "shall ascertain that all materials employed in the construction are, unless otherwise specified, to be the best of their kind, subject to the approval of the owners;" and (c) the respondents, as the owners, would pay to the petitioner the total amount of P2,300,000.00, itemized as follows: P350,000.00 as down payment, monthly payments of P350,000.00 until January 19, 1991, and the remaining sum of P200,000.00 upon completion of the house.cralaw [2]
The petitioner made a layout of the house in July 1990, and commenced the construction works on August 8, 1990, to be completed in February 1991.[3] On March 30, 1991, with the petitioner's consent, the respondents moved into the house.[4] Upon noticing several defects in the construction of the house, the respondents requested the petitioner to repair the defects, but the latter failed to render proper repairs.cralaw [5]
The respondents filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages, dated June 19, 1991, against the petitioner in the Regional Trial Court in Cebu City (RTC). The respondents alleged that they complied with the provisions of the contract, but the petitioner did not perform his undertaking because he had used cheap materials and unskilled labor in the construction of the house resulting in the poor and inferior quality of the construction; that there were 44 defects noted in the construction of the house; that they withheld the payment of the balance amounting to P231,776.80 because the petitioner did not render proper repairs; that they proposed to have the repairs performed by another contractor, the total cost of which would be subtracted from the unpaid balance, but the petitioner refused; and that the petitioner's refusal prompted them to file the complaint. They prayed for: (a) actual and moral damages of P500,000.00 and P300,000, respectively; (b) exemplary damages of P100,000.00; and (c) attorney's fees and litigation expenses of P75,000.00 and P25,000.00, respectively.cralaw [6]
In his answer, the petitioner claimed that he complied in good faith with the terms of the contract. As counterclaim, he sought payment of the following amounts: (a) P383,976.80 as unpaid adjusted balance, with interest at 14% per annum; (b) P600,000.00 as moral damages; (c) 25% of P383,976.80 as attorney's fees, plus P350.00 for every court appearance of his counsel: and (d) a sum of not less than P100,000.00 for other damages and litigation expenses.cralaw [7]
On October 1, 1992, the petitioner moved the RTC to require the respondents to file the written compromise agreement that the parties had executed for the amicable settlement of the case, which was in the possession of their counsel.[8] The respondents opposed the motion on the ground that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of the compromise agreement by failing to fix the plumbing connection of the kitchen sink of the house and by refusing to render the other works that he had committed himself to do on or before April 15, 1992. They manifested their loss of interest in settling the case and expressed their desire to have the case tried on the merits.cralaw [9]
On October 21, 1992, the respondents filed in the RTC a supplemental complaint, alleging that the parties had executed an agreement, dated April 13, 1992, without the assistance of their respective counsel after the filing of the complaint dated June 19, 1991; that under such agreement, the petitioner would fix the plumbing connection of the kitchen sink of the house; that the repair he rendered was poor; that he did not commence the other works that he had committed to do under the agreement even after the filing of supplemental complaint; and that the following defects still existed: (a) floor vibration in the master's bedroom; (b) failure of the four air conditioning units to operate at the same time; (c) unsafe connections of the electrical wirings; (d) all doors in the second floor could not be closed; and (e) overflowing of water and feces in the toilet bowl of the guest room when flushed.cralaw [10]
In his answer, the petitioner explained that he did not make the repairs because the respondents failed to submit the compromise agreement to the RTC, and that the filing of the supplemental complaint was intended to avoid payment of the balance of the contract price.cralaw [11]
During the pre-trial conference on February 12, 1993, the parties submitted the following issues for resolution of the RTC, to wit: (a) whether there was a breach of contract by the petitioner; (b) assuming there was a breach, whether the respondents were entitled to the damages prayed for in the complaint; (c) whether the remaining balance was P383,976.80, as claimed by the petitioner, or P200,000.00, as alleged by the respondents; and (d) whether the petitioner was entitled to his counterclaim.cralaw [12]
After the parties presented their evidence in chief and before the presentation of rebuttal evidence, the respondents filed a motion to conduct an ocular inspection of the house.[13] Although, the petitioner opposed the motion,[15] the RTC granted it.[15] He then moved for reconsideration, but the RTC denied reconsideration on June 10, 1994, and set the ocular inspection on June 18, 1994.[17]
On June 17, 1994, the petitioner moved to suspend the implementation of the order dated June 10, 1994 on the ground that he had appealed the order to the CA, and that the appeal was still pending.[18] The RTC denied the motion but reset the ocular inspection on July 30, 1994 to afford the petitioner ample time to obtain a restraining order from the CA.[19]
On July 28, 1994, the petitioner moved for the inhibition of the RTC Presiding Judge on the ground of partiality.[20] His motion was denied.[21] The RTC conducted an ocular inspection of the house, as scheduled, in the presence of the respondents and their counsel. The petitioner and his counsel did not take part in the ocular inspection.cralaw [22]
On August 31, 1994, the CA dismissed the petitioner's appeal.[23]
On February 8, 1996, the RTC rendered its decision, holding that the petitioner breached the building contract by employing substandard materials and poor labor resulting in the defective construction of the house; that the respondents were entitled to damages considering that the defects endangered their health and safety; that the balance of P383,976.80, as claimed by the petitioner, or P200,000.00, as alleged by the respondents were fully paid; and that the petitioner was not entitled to his counterclaim. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered and by preponderance of evidence, the Court hereby renders a Decision in favor of plaintiffs-spouses Hitotaka and Ma. Teresa Takemura and against defendant Rogelio. C. Sanchez, ordering the dismissal of the counterclaims by defendant and further, ordering the defendant to pay plaintiffs the following: P209,000.00 as actual damages; P75,000.00 as moral damages; P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; P50,000.00 as attorney's fees and P25,000.00 as litigation expenses. The alleged unpaid last installment or balance by plaintiffs are hereby considered paid and should not be deducted or set-off from the aforecited damages to be paid by defendant to plaintiffs.cralaw [24]
The petitioner sought reconsideration, insisting that the RTC Presiding Judge erred in refusing to inhibit.[25] The RTC denied the motion.[26] The petitioner then filed a notice of appeal.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed in the RTC a motion to require the respondents to submit Exhibits 18, 19, 20, and 23, claiming that such exhibits were among the respondents' exhibits; that he had adopted Exhibits 18, 19, 20, and 23 as his own; and that such exhibits were deliberately not offered by the respondents. The respondents opposed the motion, stating that such exhibits were not among their exhibits and were not formally offered.[29] In his reply, the petitioner claimed that the respondents' opposition was a concealment of the exhibits and constituted willful suppression of evidence.[30] In the end, the RTC denied the motion on the ground that the case had already been terminated and the petitioner had already perfected his appeal; hence, the matter should be addressed by the CA.[31]
On April 3, 2002, the CA affirmed with modification the judgment of the RTC. The CA concurred with the RTC that the petitioner had breached the building contract; found the RTC's denial of the motion to inhibit to be proper; ordered the respondents to pay to the petitioner the amount of P19,976.80 representing their unpaid balance of the contract price; deleted the actual, moral, and exemplary damages; awarded nominal damages of P75,000.00; and upheld the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses in the corresponding amounts. The CA decreed as follows:
WHEREFORE, with the MODIFICATION that appellant is hereby ordered to pay appellees the amount of P75,000.00 as nominal damages and appellees to pay appellant the amount of P19,976.80 representing the balance of their obligation to the latter, which amount may be set off against the damages which the latter has been adjudged to pay to appellees, the assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects.cralaw [32]
With the denial of his motion for reconsideration,[33] the petitioner now appeals.[34]
Issues
The petitioner claims that the respondents violated Presidential Decree No. 1096 (PD 1096)[35] when they occupied the house without securing a certificate of completion and a certificate of occupancy from the Office of Building Official; that the Cebu City Prosecutor's Office recommended the filing of criminal charges against the respondents; that the RTC Presiding Judge showed partiality when he denied the motion to inhibit and the motion to require the respondents to submit Exhibits 18, 19, 20, and 23; that the grant of nominal damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses was improper; and that the respondents were liable for their balance of P383,976.80, not P19,976.80.cralaw [36]
Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, an appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the CA must raise only questions of law. An issue pertaining to a question of fact is improper because the Court is not a trier of facts.[37] In Central Bank of the Philippines v. Castro,[38] the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact was fully delineated, to wit:
xxx A question is one of law when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. It is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts or when the resolution of the issue raised requires a calibration of the whole evidence.cralaw
The test of whether a question is one of law or fact is not, the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same. It is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence and would only limit itself to the inquiry of whether the law was properly applied given the facts and supporting evidence. Such is a genuine question of law. Otherwise, it is a question of fact.cralaw
Whether or not the respondents violated PD 1096 is a question of fact that requires the Court to assess the facts and evidence on record to determine and resolve the question. Consequently, the submission of this issue now is impermissible.
Moreover, even assuming that the respondents violated PD 1096, the petitioner would not be relieved of his liability under the building contract. A violation of PD 1096 was entirely different from a breach of contract. A violation of PD 1096 was penal in nature, but this action against the petitioner was civil. The parties involved in a violation of PD 1096 were the State and the violator, but the parties here were the petitioner and the respondents. The basis for the charge of violation of PD 1096 against the respondents was their failure to secure a certificate of completion and occupancy as required by law; however, the cause of action here was the petitioner's breach of the building contract. The respondents' alleged violation of PD 1096 was immaterial and did not in any way affect the obligations of the petitioner and the respondents as parties in the building contract. Concededly, either case might proceed independently of the other.cralaw
The RTC Presiding Judge committed no impropriety in denying the petitioner's motion to inhibit. Bias or partiality, although constituting a valid reason for the inhibition of a judge, must be proved with clear and convincing evidence,[39] because it is never presumed. A bare allegation of bias or partiality is not sufficient.[40] Here, the petitioner's sole basis for his allegation was his assertion that he had seen the RTC Presiding Judge talking with the respondents after the trial.[41] Such allegation was self-serving and uncorroborated because the petitioner did not adduce evidence to support it. Also, the petitioner moved for inhibition after the RTC Presiding Judge had granted the respondents' motion for ocular inspection over the petitioner's vigorous opposition. The grant of the motion for ocular inspection was warranted, however, inasmuch as the ocular inspection was necessary for the trial court's proper assessment and reaching a conclusion relevant to the breach of contract by the petitioner. Nevertheless, the RTC Presiding Judge showed leniency towards the petitioner by postponing the ocular inspection several times to accommodate his motions to prevent the conduct of the ocular inspection.cralaw
The denial by the RTC of the motion to require the respondents to submit certain exhibits was equally warranted. The appeal had been earlier perfected upon the petitioner's filing of the notice of appeal, resulting in the RTC losing its jurisdiction to act upon any matter in the case,[42] except as it might issue orders prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal to protect and preserve the rights of the parties that did not involve any matter litigated by the appeal in accordance with the last paragraph of Section 9,[43] Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Based on the records of the RTC, the petitioner filed the motion only on January 9, 1997.[44] a day over eight months from his filing of the notice of appeal on May 10, 1996.cralaw [45]
The CA exhaustively explained its ruling that the respondents must pay the petitioner the balance of the contract price amounting to only P19,976.80,[46] and supported the explanation by referring to the various documentary evidence adduced.[47] With the petitioner not persuasively showing how the CA committed reversible error, we affirm because the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive upon the Court.cralaw [48]
Likewise, we sustain the awards of nominal damages amounting to P75,000.00 and attorney's fees and litigation expenses amounting to P50,000.00 and P25,000.00, respectively. The awards were consistent with the facts and the pertinent laws. Both the RTC and the CA found the petitioner guilty of breaching the building contract.[49] We find no cogent reason to deviate from their findings, which were supported by the evidence,[50] and conformed with the pertinent laws. Article 1171 of the Civil Code provides that those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof are liable for damages. Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated by the defendant for the purpose of vindicating that right. The petitioner's breach of the building contract having been duly established, it was unavoidable to consider the award of nominal damages in the amount of P75,000.00 as proper and reasonable. Article 2208 of the Civil Code states that attorney's fees and litigation expenses may be recovered when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest, and in any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees' and expenses of litigation should be recovered. Respondent Maria Teresa Takemura testified that she had incurred expenses for her lawyer's legal services in. the prosecution of the case against the petitioner.[51] Under the circumstances, and taking into good account the work done in the case by the respondents' lawyer, as reflected in the records, the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses in the respective amounts of P50,000.00 and P25,000.00 was justified.cralaw
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari, and AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 56425.
The petitioner shall pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 27-45.[2] RTC Records, pp. 7-8.
[3] TSN, July 9, 1993, p. 14.
[4] TSN, September 13, 1993, p. 18.
[5] TSN, July 2, 1993, p. 6.
[6] RTC records, pp. 1-6.
[7] Id., pp. 12-15.
[8] Id., p. 76.
[9] Id., pp. 77-78.
[10] Id., pp. 80-82.
[11] Id., pp. 89-90.
[12] Id., p. 95.
[13] Id., pp. 201-203.
[14] Id., pp. 207-209.
[15] Id., pp. 224-225.
[16] Id., pp. 226-228.
[17] Id., pp. 232-233.
[18] Id., p. 236.
[19] Id., pp. 237-238.
[20] Id., p. 239.
[21] Id., pp. 241-242.
[22] Id., pp. 251-263.
[23] Id., pp. 267-270.
[24] Id., pp. 420-446.
[25] Id., pp. 448-460.
[26] Id., pp. 464-467.
[27] Id., p. 469.
[28] Id., p. 474.
[29] Id., pp. 476-477.
[30] Id., p. 480.
[31] Id., p. 481.
[32] Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[33] Id., p. 46.
[34] Id., pp. 12-26.
[35] National Building Code.
[36] Rollo, pp. 17-24.
[37] Casino, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133803, September 16, 2005, 470 SCRA 57, 67.
[38] G.R. No. 156311, December 16, 2005, 478 SCRA 235.
[39] Gochan v. Gochan, G.R. No. 143089, February 27, 2003, 398 SCRA 323, 333.
[40] Id.
[41] RTC Records, pp. 239-240.
[42] Obosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114350, January 16, 1997, 266 SCRA 281, 295.
[43] Section 9. Perfection of appeal: effect thereof. � xxx
xxx
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.cralaw (9a) (bold emphasis supplied)
[44] RTC Records, p. 474.
[45] Id., p. 469.
[46] Rollo, pp. 39-41.
[47] RTC Records, pp. 16-17 and 87-88.
[48] Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120262. July 17, 1997, 275 SCRA 621, 627.
[49] RTC Records, pp. 443-444; rollo, p. 35.
[50] RTC Records, pp. 437-444; rollo, pp. 35-39.
[51] TSN, July 2, 1993, p. 15.cralaw
