ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 137353. July 11, 2001]

RUBEN LIM, petitioner vs. ANTONIO BASCO, respondent.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 11 2001.

G.R. No. 137353 (Ruben Lim, petitioner vs. Antonio Basco, respondents.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 26, 1998 in CA-G.R. CV No. 52117, affirming the decision of the trial court acquitting Ruben Lim, petitioner, of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, but ordering him to pay complainant, Antonio Basco, two hundred ten thousand pesos (P210,000.00) as civil liability.

Petitioner alleged in the instant petition that he and respondent are cousins-in-law and are engaged in demolition business. On April 2, 1992, respondent issued to petitioner Philippine Savings Bank Check No. 147953 in the amount of One Million Six Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three (P1,600,393.00) Pesos. This was in payment of a loan respondent obtained from petitioner on December 26, 1991. But when petitioner encashed the check with the drawee bank, it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

In his comment on the petition, respondent denies having borrowed P1,600,393.00 from petitioner. What he owed petitioner is only Two Hundred Ten Thousand (P210,000.00) Pesos, which he needed in his demolition business. Sometime during the last week of January or the first week of February 1991, he issued a blank check to petitioner so that the latter, by showing the same to his creditors, would enhance his business stature and enable him to raise more money. Thereafter, petitioner, in violation of their understanding, filled up the blank check by entering therein the sum of P1,600,393.00, which amount exceeded the funds he (respondent) had in his checking account. Consequently, when the check was encashed by petitioner, it was dishonored by the drawee bank for lack of sufficient funds.

Due to the dishonor of the check, petitioner caused the filing with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 29, of Criminal Case No. 92-110930 for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against respondent. After hearing, the trial court acquitted respondent on the ground of reasonable doubt, holding that the case is civil in nature as the check was issued and delivered to petitioner for the purpose of enhancing his business standing, not for the purpose of negotiating it. But, the trial court ordered respondent to pay petitioner the sum of P210,000.00 as civil liability. Forthwith, petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals which ruled that a judgment of acquittal may not be appealed, but affirmed the decision of the trial court finding respondent civilly liable to petitioner in the amount of P210,000.00.

Petitioner, in the present petition, contends that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondent's civil liability is only P210,000.00, instead of P1,600,393.00, the value of the check.

For his part, respondent vehemently denies having borrowed from petitioner P1,600,393.00, insisting that his loan is only P210,000.00. But petitioner entered the sum of P1,600,393.00 in the subject check.

The issue posed before us is whether respondent's indebtedness to petitioner is P1,600,393.00, as indicated in the Philippine Savings Bank Check No 147953, or only P210,000.00, as claimed by respondent.

In sustaining the RTC decision, the Court of Appeals held:

"Inasmuch as complainant received a blank check and was not filled up strictly in accordance with the authority given, that is the amount intended by the accused-appellee to be placed therein, complainant-appellant can not be considered a holder in due course and therefore cannot enforce the full amount of the face value of the check."

It is readily apparent that the issue is one of fact which this Court has no authority to rule upon. Indeed, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. ¹ David-Chan vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 677 (1997), citing Meneses vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 162 (1995); Consolidated Bank and Trust Company (Solidbank) vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 193 (1995); Banson vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 42 (1995); Floro vs. Llenado, 244 SCRA 713 (1995).In a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, only questions of law may be raised. The doctrinal rule is that findings of fact of the lower courts, including the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and will not be reviewed on appeal, except: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record." ² Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 712 (1996); David-Chan vs. Court of Appeals, supra, citing Florentino Reyes, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110207, July 11, 1996

Petitioner has failed to persuade us that this case falls under one of the above exceptions.

WHEREFORE , the petition is hereby DENIED. The challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE