March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 181957 : March 14, 2012]
RENATO P. MENDOZA, NEGOTIATING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF LADY LOU GENERAL MERCHANDISE V. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.
G.R. No. 181957 (Renato P. Mendoza, negotiating under the name and style of Lady Lou General Merchandise v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.) � On or about 16 January 1994, petitioner entered into a Supplementary Distribution Agreement with respondent S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (SCJ), wherein the Former was made a mobile distributor of SJC's consumer products for the period 16 January 1994 to 19 December 1994. The contract also provided that the consumer goods procured from respondent was to be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of delivery. Moreover, the parties agreed that should suits arise from the transactions subject of the contract, petitioner was to pay SCJ attorney's fees in an amount equivalent to 25% of the total amount due.
As security for his full compliance with the contract, petitioner secured a P500,000 surety bond from Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. (Stronghold), scheduled to expire on 4 February 1995.
On various dates, petitioner purchased consumer goods on credit. The purchases were covered by invoices, and were to be picked up at petitioner's warehouse.
Subsequently, the parties renewed their agreement for the year 1995. Petitioner also secured another P500,000 as additional bond coverage to expire also on 4 February 1995.
Eventually, respondent found that petitioner still had a balance of P1,011,337.13. Despite notice and demand, petitioner failed to pay the full obligation. Respondent likewise demanded payment of P1 million from Stronghold, to no avail. Thus, respondent filed a case for a sum of money against petitioner and Stronghold.
In his defense, petitioner alleged that only three invoices had in fact been signed and the goods picked up by him. Thus, he alleged that he could only be made liable for the amount covered by those invoices. He further alleged that he was liable to pay only P4,640.87. He also asserted that the 25% attorney's fees provided for in the contract was neither explained to nor understood by him.
On the other hand, Stronghold alleged that the surety bond it executed in favor of petitioner had already expired on 4 February 1995, and that respondent had until 9 February 1995 to inform Stronghold of petitioner's existing obligation. Respondents failure to do so released Stronghold from any obligation to petitioner or respondent. Moreover, Stronghold alleged that it had been released from liability for petitioner's obligation due to novation.
The RTC granted respondent's claim, but dismissed the Complaint against Stronghold. Aside from, ordering petitioner to pay the outstanding obligation of P1,011,337.13, the trial court also ordered the payment of interest at 24% per annum from 17 December 1994; the payment of 25% of the total amount due as attorney's fees; and the costs of suit.
On appeal, petitioner raised that (1) his total liability amounted only to P4,640.87; (2) the RTC erred in imposing interest at the rate of 25% per annum; and (3) the trial court should have dismissed the case after only respondent's counsel signed the Certificate of non-forum shopping and absent any authorization from respondent.
After an exhaustive review of the facts and applicable laws on the matter, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the findings of fact of the trial court, but deleted the award of attorney's fees and decreased the legal interest to 12%.[2]
Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, alleging that the CA failed to rule on the issue of the validity of the Certificate of non-forum shopping. Secondly, he insisted that respondent had failed to prove during trial that petitioner was liable for six invoices, Exhibits "O," "Q," "R," "S," "T," and "U," with a total value of P461,841.62.
On 29 February 2008, the CA denied the motion on the ground that the issue of forum shopping was raised for the first time on appeal. It also held that the issue regarding petitioner's liability was already exhaustively discussed in its Decision.
In the present Petition, it is alleged by petitioner that the trial court failed to make a formal ruling on respondent's formal offer of evidence consisting of Exhibits �A" to "CC." Thus, petitioner insists that the RTC erred in admitting Exhibits "E," "F," "G," "H," "J," "K," "L," "M," "N," "O," "P," "Q," "R," "S," "T," and "U" despite his "vigorous" objections. Petitioner contends that the trial court's failure to issue a formal order on the admissibility of respondent's exhibits and/or to furnish petitioner with a copy thereof is an error of law.
Respondent, in its Comment,[3] meanwhile insists that the RTC had, in fact, made a ruling in open court during the hearing on 8 April 1997. This ruling was recorded and entered in the minutes of the proceedings. Furthermore, the court stated in its Decision that Exhibits "A" to "CC" had been duly admitted.
The rule is settled that issues not raised below cannot be pleaded for the first time on appeal. "Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Basic considerations of due process impel this rule."[4]
Secondly, the issue of whether or not the trial court ruled on the matter is a question of fact, which may not be the subject of a petition for review.cralaw
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Fernanda Lampas Peralta concurring; rollo, pp. 17-32.[2] Citing The President of Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Reyes, 499 Phil. 470 (2005).
[3] Rollo, pp. 46-49.
[4] Philippine Nails and Wires Corporation, v. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. 445 Phil. 465 (2003), citing Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, 340 Phil. 634 (1997); City of Cebu v. Heirs of Candida Rubi, 366 Phil. 70 (1999): Hufana v. Genato, 417 Phil. 709 (2001); San Juan Structural & Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 631 (1998).