ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 111073. January 17, 2000]

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court dated JAN 17, 2000.

G.R. No. 111073 (Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and City Lumber Inc.)

At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and Resolution, dated March 25, 1993, and July 15, 1993, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 18593, entitled "City Lumber, Inc. vs. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation."

In CA-G.R. CV No. 18593, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of Branch 32 of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental in Dumaguete City in Civil Case No. 5561, disposing thus:

(2) Dismissing defendant's counterclaim. 1 Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City Branch 32, March 11, 1987, Annex "A", Rollo, p.47.

The facts of the case can be synthesized as follows:

On May 16, 1987, fire razed the premises of Branch 32 of the Regional trial Court of Negros Oriental in Dumaguete City, destroying all the records of the case below. When the conflagration occurred, petitioner had already perfected its appeal but the records of the case were not yet elevated to the appellate court.

Several petitions were brought before the trial court for the admission of the attachments, annexes and transcript of stenographic notes that were saved in the personal files and records of the parties; and on July 8, 1988, the Regional Trial Court a quo declared subject records fully reconstituted.

On April 30, 1993, the defendant-appellant (petitioner here) sent in a motion to Submit Authenticated Copies of Reconstituted Documentary Exhibits to the Court of Appeals placing reliance on the Order of the lower court, dated July 8, 1988, considering the records of the case fully reconstituted, and holding:

"When the Joint Supplemental Petition for Reconstitution filed with this Court on June 14, 1988, was called this morning lawyers of both parties did not appear. There being no objection thereto up to the present from any quarter, it is hereby granted. Accordingly, the reproduced transcripts of stenographic notes attached thereto are hereby admitted in place of originals thereof which have been destroyed by fire. Along with the pleadings, judicial orders, processes and documents annexed to the petition for reconstitution dated 1 December 1987, and the aforementioned amended reproduced transcripts of stenographic notes, this case is fully reconstituted. xxx" 2 Records, p. 439.

Undaunted, petitioner found its way to this Court via the present Petition for review on Certiorari, which petition was denied on December 14, 1994, the Court holding then:

"Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari, as well as private respondents' comment thereon, petitioner's reply thereto and private respondents' rejoinder, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for being factual and for failure of the petition to sufficiently show that the respondent court had committed any reversible error in rendering the questioned judgement." 3 Rollo, p. 108.

On March 24, 1995, the herein petitioner interposed a motion for reconsideration. Acting thereupon on June 14, 1994 and set aside the aforesaid Resolution of December 14, 1994 and reinstated subject petition for review on certiorari, ratiocinating as follows:

On July 25, 1995, respondent City Lumber, Inc. submitted its Comment to the effect that the:

On August 24, 1995, petitioner filed a Reply, theorizing thus:

Filed on September 20, 1995, respondent City Lumber's Rejoinder, argued:

On November 24, 1995, petitioner sent in a Memorandum stating practically the same set of facts as averred in the petition for review. The same was true with the respondent, City Lumber, Inc., when it filed its memorandum on December 7, 1995.

For determination here is the correctness of the disposition by the Court of Appeals affirming the Decision of the trial court, and its Resolution disallowing' petitioner to submit authenticated copies of duly reconstituted exhibits.

The petition must fail. It is not impressed with merit.

The petition poses factual factual issue not proper for resolution on a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Mindful of the prevailing jurisprudence, although the Court has recognized several exceptions (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phils) Inc., G.R. No. 96262, March 22, 1999) to the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari (Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual and Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and EBR Realty, Inc, G.R. No. 126745, July 26, 1999), petitioner here failed to show that the case under scrutiny may be treated as an exception, as to allow a review of factual issues. After scrutinizing private respondent's Comment, petitioner's Reply, private respondent's Rejoinder and the parties' Memoranda, the Court holds that the decision of the Court of Appeals is duly supported by the evidence on record.

In the case of Maximo Fuentes v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Virgilio Uy, et al., 335 Phil 1163, 1167-1168, G.R. No. 109849, February 26, 1997, with Justice Panganiban as ponente, the Court said:

In light of the foregoing, it is decisively clear that the decision of the lower court, as upheld by the Court of Appeals, accords with the evidence on record.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on certiorari under consideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 18593 AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.