ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 123358. August 9, 2000]

FCY CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. & YU vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 9 2000.

G.R. No. 123358 (FCY Construction Group, Inc. and Francis Yu vs. The Court of Appeals, The Hon Jose C. De La Rama and Ley Construction and Development Corporation.)

For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of our February 1, 2000 Decision, which denied the Petition for Review and affirmed the Court of Appeals' denial of the petition therein seeking the lifting of the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the trial court.

Petitioners insist that none of the grounds cited by the trial court for the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment constitutes positive proof of dolo causante.

Reviewing once again the July 6, 1993 Order of the trial court directing the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment, we are convinced that the same was based on extant testimonial and documentary evidence aptly supporting the application for the writ. These pieces of evidence were in like manner weighed and evaluated by respondent Court of Appeals. In our Decision which is now sought to be reconsidered, we have already passed upon and discussed the arguments raised by petitioner against the said evidence and we have found these arguments to be insufficient bases for the lifting of the writ of preliminary attachment.

Indeed, in an effort to prevent a finding of dolo causante on their part, petitioners argued that the incidents and circumstances which induced private respondent to enter into the contract with them were not caused or created by them but, rather, by the DPWH. In the assailed Decision, we held that this contention is without merit, after finding that the alleged DPWH inducement occurred after the contract's inception.

In fine, we find that the motion for Partial Reconsideration presents no cogent and compelling reason to warrant a reconsideration of our Decision dated February 1, 2000.

ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE