ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 142047. July 10, 2006]

SPS. SERGIO AND MILAGROS OJEDA versus ANDRELINA ORBETA

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 10, 2006 .

G.R. No. 142047 (Sps. Sergio and Milagros Ojeda versus Andrelina Orbeta)

Petitioner spouses Sergio Ojeda and Milagros Ojeda seek a reversal of the February 24, 2000 Decision [1] cralaw rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59985 entitled Andrelina Orbeta v. Sps. Sergio Ojeda and Milagros Ojeda. The questioned decision affirmed the February 23, 1995 Decision [2] cralaw of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 106 of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-91-7794.

The facts of this case are not complicated.

From 1986 to 1989, the spouses Ojeda obtained various loans they would use as additional capital from Andrelina Orbeta, a general merchandiser and former market stall holder. Over time, Orbeta extended a total of 18 loans to the spouses. [3] cralaw Although the couple failed to pay their obligations on time, Orbeta continued to accommodate them, and lent them more money on the assurance that they would soon pay all their debts. Every time Orbeta would verbally demand payment, she was told that payment was forthcoming and there was nothing to worry about since the spouses' business was doing well and the couple had a daughter based in Japan who always sent them money. To their sincerity, they aver, they even delivered a copy of the registration papers of one of their vehicles to Orbeta.

Notwithstanding all their promises, however, the spouses' obligations remained unpaid. Orbeta made numerous demands but all attempts to collect from the couple proved futile. Frustrated by their failure to pay, Orbeta through her lawyer sent a demand letter to the spouses on March 1989. [4] cralaw Eventually, on July 1989, after an accounting of all outstanding loans due, Milagros Ojeda issued Security Bank and Trust Company Check No. 027836 dated September 1, 1989 for P487,133.87, representing full settlement of all obligations due in favor of Orbeta. When presented for payment, however, the check was dishonored for having been drawn against an account already closed.

Consequently, Orbeta filed Criminal Case No. Q-90-10226 for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against Milagros Ojeda with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. [5] cralaw After a plea of guilty, judgment was rendered against the accused in a decision [6] cralaw dated October 11, 1990. The dispositive portion of the decision read:

WHEREFORE, considering the plea of Guilty entered by accused Milagros Ojeda this morning, the Court hereby renders judgment:

1. Finding said accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged;

2. Sentencing her to suffer the penalty of ONE (1) YEAR imprisonment; and

3. To pay costs.

The decision was promulgated in open Court this morning in the presence of the accused herself, Assistant City Prosecutor Perpetuo LB Alonzo and Atty. Renerio S. Payumo.

SO ORDERED.

Consistent with the reservation made by Ojeda in the BP 22 case, Civil Case No. Q-91-7794 was subsequently filed against the spouses to collect on the civil aspect of the BP 22 case. In the civil case, the Regional Trial Court ruled as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding no cogent reason to deny the relief being prayed for, the cause of action of plaintiff having been fully established and proven by preponderant evidence, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants to pay plaintiff:

1.������ The amount of Four Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand One Hundred Thirteen and 87/100 (P487,113.87) pesos with 12% interest from filing of the case until fully paid.

2.������ 25% of the principal obligation as and by way of attorney's fees.

3.             Cost of suit.

SO ORDERED. [7] cralaw

Aggrieved, the spouses brought their case to the Court of Appeals where the Regional Trial Court's judgment was affirmed, to wit:

WHEREFORE, with the sole modification that the award for attorney's fee[s] is hereby eliminated, the Judgment appealed from is in all other respects AFFIRMED, with the costs of this instance to be taxed against the defendants-appellants.

SO ORDERED. [8] cralaw

Before us now are the following issues: (1) Are the spouses liable for issuing Security Bank and Trust Company Check No. 027836? (2) Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding the propriety of the civil case that was instituted separately from the BP 22 case?

To justify their prayer for a reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision, the spouses insist that there are special and important reasons present in the case which constitute a question of law and there was a misapprehension of facts committed by the Court of Appeals which must be rectified.

Petitioners maintain that any obligation arising from Security Bank and Trust Company Check No. 027836 is invalid and illegal since the same was issued in blank except for the signature of Milagros Ojeda. They further claim that they already paid P55,000 to satisfy their obligation to Orbeta of P30,000 only. The couple also aver that the motion of Orbeta to file a separate civil action was merely noted by the Regional Trial Court in the BP 22 case and there was no order granting the institution of a separate civil action.

Respondent Orbeta, on the other hand, counters that the errors raised by the spouses deal with questions of fact which have already been passed upon and decided by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals and cannot now be raised in this petition for review. Orbeta also contends that, the couple cannot assert for the first time that the motion to file a separate civil action was merely noted and no order was issued by the Regional Trial Court granting the same since a full blown trial had been conducted without the said issue having been raised by the spouses, hence, they are barred from doing so, since they are considered to have waived any objection they may have had on the subject. Finally, Orbeta points out that the judgment in the BP 22 case did not contain an award for civil liability which is tantamount to the Regional Trial Court's approval of the motion. [9] cralaw

To resolve the first issue, we must here emphasize that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition such as this is limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the lower court. The allegation of the spouses that Security Bank and Trust Company Check No. 027836 was delivered to Orbeta in blank except for the signature of Milagros Ojeda and the amount of P10,000 annotated at the back of the check, and their contention that they cannot be held liable for the face value of the check since Milagros Ojeda was not the one who filled up the date, name of the payee and the amount appearing on the check, are questions of fact that require us to re-examine the evidence presented by the contending parties during trial. This cannot be done in a petition for review. Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review, except in very few specified instances, e.g. where there is variance in the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts. Since both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals agree on the cited facts, we are bound by their factual findings.

In any event, the spouses do not deny that the check was delivered to Orbeta and that the signature appearing on the check belongs to Milagros Ojeda. Even if the check was delivered to Orbeta in blank, we must stress that the presumption is that the latter had prima facie authority to complete the check by filling up the same. Here, the provision of Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Law is pertinent:

SEC. 14. Blanks; when may be filled. - Where the instrument is wanting in any material particular, the person in possession thereof has a prima facie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein. And a signature on a blank paper delivered by the person making the signature in order that the paper may be converted into a negotiable instrument operates as a prima facie authority to fill it up as such for any amount. In order, however, that any such instrument, when completed may be enforced against any person who became a party thereto prior to its completion, it must be filled up strictly in accordance with the authority given and within a reasonable time. But if any such instrument, after completion, is negotiated to a holder in due course, it is valid and effectual for all purposes in his hands, and he may enforce it as if it had been filled up strictly in accordance with the authority given and within a reasonable time. (Emphasis supplied.)

The law merely requires that the instrument be in the possession of a person other than the drawer or maker, and from such possession, together with the fact that the instrument is wanting in a material particular, the law presumes agency to fill up the blanks. [10] cralaw Because of the presumption of authority, the burden of proving that there was no authority or that the authority granted was exceeded is placed on the person questioning such authority. [11] cralaw There is nothing on record to show that the prima facie presumption created by the afore-quoted section was successfully refuted by the spouses. Therefore, the couple's stance that they cannot be held liable for the check because they were not the ones who wrote the date, the name of the payee and the amount, is untenable.

On the second issue, it appears that an urgent motion to file a separate civil action was filed by Orbeta on October 11, 1990, which motion was correspondingly noted by the Regional Trial Court in its decision. [12] cralaw Since the civil liability involved in this case is one that arises from a crime, the rule is that the same is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action; reserves his right to institute it separately; or institutes the civil action prior to the filing of the criminal case. [13] cralaw The purpose of the rule requiring reservation is to prevent the offended party from recovering damages twice for the same act or omission. [14] cralaw

Orbeta's intention to reserve her right to recover the civil liability arising from the BP 22 case is clear from the time she filed the urgent motion. [15] cralaw The fact that the Regional Trial Court did not provide for an award of damages in its decision is also a clear recognition of Orbeta's reservation.

Contrary to the spouses' argument, an order by the Regional Trial Court granting the urgent motion to file a separate civil action is not necessary since the rules only require that the offended party make the reservation before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.

Lastly, we agree with respondent that it is now too late for the spouses to question the institution of the civil case separately from the BP 22 case. A full blown trial was conducted in the civil case with the participation of the spouses, but they never raised any objection thereto, and they cannot be allowed here and now to raise this issue for the first time.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The February 24, 2000 Decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining the February 23, 1995 Decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 12-24. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with Associate Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr., and B.A. Adefuin-De la Cruz concurring.

[2] cralaw Id. at 25-31.

[3] cralaw Id. at 19.

[4] cralaw Id. at 18.

[5] cralaw Id. at 16.

[6] cralaw Id. at 51-52.

[7] cralaw Id. at 31.

[8] cralaw Id. at 23.

[9] cralaw Id. at 45-46.

[10] cralaw A-F. Agbayani, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE COMMERCIAL LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. I, 168 (1987 ed.).

[11] cralaw J.C. Campos, Jr. & M.C. Lopez-Campos, NOTES AND SELECTED CASES ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS Law, 351 (3rd ed., 1971) (citations omitted).

[12] cralaw Rollo, p. 52.

[13] cralaw The Rules of Criminal Procedure prevailing then provides:

SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. - When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused.

A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The institution of, or the reservation of the right to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the others.

The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.

In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused.

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the filing fees for such civil action as provided in these Rules shall constitute a first lien on the judgment except in an award for actual damages.

In cases wherein the amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for trial.

[14] cralaw Yakult Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91856, October 5, 1990, 190 SCRA 357, 361.

[15] cralaw Under the present Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com