July 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 170039 : July 27, 2010] ROBERTO MASICLAT AND VIRGILIO MASICLAT, PETITIONERS, VS. DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO., INC. AND THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF TARLAC, :
[G.R. No. 170039 : July 27, 2010]
ROBERTO MASICLAT AND VIRGILIO MASICLAT, PETITIONERS, VS. DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO., INC. AND THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF TARLAC, RESPONDENTS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 July 2010 which, reads as follows:
G.R. No. 170039: ROBERTO MASICLAT and VIRGILIO MASICLAT, petitioners, versus DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO., INC. and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF TARLAC, respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] dated 27 July 2004 and Resolution[3] dated 4 October 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 64293. The CA affirmed in toto the Decision dated 7 June 1999 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 93.
On 5 November 1981, respondent Destileria Limtuaco & Co., Inc. (Limtuaco) hired petitioner Virgilio Masiclat[4] (Masiclat) as Junior Salesman tasked to sell and promote the company's products in specific areas in Quezon City on a commission basis. Limtuaco and Masiclat entered into a Salesman Agency Agreement which provided, among others, for the following terms and conditions:
The agency agreement also required Masiclat to post a property bond or real estate mortgage in favor of Limtuaco to (1) answer for any loss of merchandise or property consigned to him or under his custody, and (2) insure compliance with all other obligations assumed by him under the agreement. Thus, Masiclat mortgaged a parcel of land located in Malibog, Porac, Pampanga owned by his parents, Narciso Masiclat[6] and Ursula Suba[7] in favor of Limtuaco- After six months, Masiclat got promoted to Senior Salesman.
On 28 February 1983, Masiclat mortgaged another parcel of land consisting of 750 square meters located in La Paz, Tarlac to Limtuaco as property bond. Although the land was already sold in favor of Masiclat's brother, his co-petitioner Roberto Masiclat, as of 17 December 1981, the land was still registered with the Tarlac Provincial Registry in the name of Masiclat's parents under Transfer of Certificate of Title No. 146042.
Sometime in 1988, Masiclat, together with several employees, staged a strike against Limtuaco that lasted for months. Being an active officer of the union, Masiclat received a termination letter dated 1 December 1988 from Limtuaco informing him to settle his merchandise accountabilities, tools, materials and service vehicle which were issued to him by Limtuaco as a sales agent.
After conducting a preliminary audit, Limtuaco sent a Letter dated 18 January 1989 to Masiclat demanding that he pay the amount of P30,989.18 constituting unremitted sales proceeds as of 31 December 1988. Limtuaco also filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Masiclat with the Office of the Prosecutor of Quezon City on the basis of Masiclat's refusal to turn over the service vehicle Limtuaco issued to him. Later, in a Resolution dated 11 September 1989, the prosecutor dismissed the complaint.[8]
Again, in a Letter dated 13 December 1989, Limtuaco required Masiclat to pay the amount of P209,217,05 representing Masiclat's total unremitted sales accountability as of 17 November 1989. Limtuaco also threatened to foreclose the second real estate mortgage comprising of the 750-square meter land located in La Paz, Tarlac to answer for the unremitted sales.
On 28 December 1989, Masiclat wrote a reply letter to Limtuaco denying its claim for the unremitted sales collections.
Meanwhile, Limtuaco filed a petition for the extrajudicial sale of the 750-square meter land with the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac, public respondent in this case.
On 23 March 1990, the Masiclats filed with the RTC of Tarlac, Branch 63 a complaint[9] for annulment and cancellation of mortgage with writ of preliminary injunction and damages entitled "Narciso Masiclat, Ursula Masiclat and Virgilio Masiclat vs. The Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac and Destileria Limtuaco & Co., Inc. " On 27 March 1990, the RTC issued a restraining order- On 5 April 1990, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction. On 2 October 1990, the RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that venue was improperly laid.
Consequently, Limtuaco revived its petition for the extrajudicial sale of the land. In the Notice of Public Auction dated 21 February 1991, the Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac reset the public auction on 26 March 1991.
On 15 March 1991, Narciso and Virgilio Masiclat filed with-the RTC of Quezon City a complaint for annulment of mortgage and damages with prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Petitioner Roberto Masiclat was impleaded as plaintiff in the case as a real party-in-interest, having bought from his parents the mortgaged land in December 1981.
On 15 April 1991, the RTC granted the application for writ of preliminary injunction. On 14 June 1991, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued enjoining the auction sale of the land.
In a Decision dated 7 June 1999, the RTC dismissed the complaint. The dispositive portion[10] states:
Petitioners appealed with the CA. On 27 July 2004, the CA denied the appeal for lack of merit. The dispositive portion[11] states;
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated 4 October 2005.
Hence, this petition.
The issue is whether or not the Court can take cognizance of this case as an exception to Rule 45 that only questions of law may be raised.
Petitioners insist that this case falls under the recognized exceptions established by jurisprudence under Rule 45 that: (1) the findings of facts are ' premised on the absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; and (3) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
Petitioners argue that Masiclat already testified during trial that he has no unsettled obligations with Limtuaco. Also, Juliet Presilla (Presilla), the employee who prepared the subsidiary ledgers which were presented by Limtuaco during trial to be the summary of accountabilities of Masiclat, was not presented as a witness. Neither was Presilla's deposition taken to attest the certainty and correctness of Masiclat's accountabilities. Thus, the ledgers are incompetent and inadmissible in evidence for lack of authentication.
The petition lacks merit.
At the outset, while only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the rule admits of certain exceptions: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[12]
After a perusal of the records, we find no such exceptions existing in the present case.
Petitioners submit that the findings of facts of the CA are premised on the absence or inadmissibility of evidence and that the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts. These claims deserve scant consideration. Both the trial and appellate courts concluded that Limtuaco presented ample documentation, i.e., Statement of Accountability as of 17 November 1989; subsidiary ledgers; and other accounting records, to support its claim that Masiclat had unsettled obligations. In fact, it was from these supporting documents submitted by Limtuaco where it was discovered that check payments amounting to P117,116.17 were already remitted to the company by Masiclat but which were subsequently dishonored. As a sales agent, Masiclat is not charged with collecting dishonored check remittances. Thus, such amount was properly excluded from the computation of Masiclat's total accountability as recognized in the 7 June 1999 Decision of the RTC.
Further, in deciding against petitioners, the CA made the following findings:
We agree with the CA's observations and find no reversible error. Petitioners were not able to sufficiently prove that the present case falls under any of the exceptions laid down by jurisprudence for this Court to take cognizance of a case under Rule 45 where only questions of law may be raised.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 27 July 2004 and Resolution dated 4 October 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 64293.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 170039: ROBERTO MASICLAT and VIRGILIO MASICLAT, petitioners, versus DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO., INC. and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF TARLAC, respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] dated 27 July 2004 and Resolution[3] dated 4 October 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 64293. The CA affirmed in toto the Decision dated 7 June 1999 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 93.
On 5 November 1981, respondent Destileria Limtuaco & Co., Inc. (Limtuaco) hired petitioner Virgilio Masiclat[4] (Masiclat) as Junior Salesman tasked to sell and promote the company's products in specific areas in Quezon City on a commission basis. Limtuaco and Masiclat entered into a Salesman Agency Agreement which provided, among others, for the following terms and conditions:
XXX
6. All sales proceeds and collections shall be turned over promptly to the company by the Sales-Agent; All deliveries made to the sales-agent are automatically understood to be on consignment basis by virtue of this contract and shortage either in the sales proceeds or in the stock consigned shall constitute criminal liability on the part of the sales-agent. The sales- agent shall pay all his obligations and vales before he terminates his service with the company."[5]
The agency agreement also required Masiclat to post a property bond or real estate mortgage in favor of Limtuaco to (1) answer for any loss of merchandise or property consigned to him or under his custody, and (2) insure compliance with all other obligations assumed by him under the agreement. Thus, Masiclat mortgaged a parcel of land located in Malibog, Porac, Pampanga owned by his parents, Narciso Masiclat[6] and Ursula Suba[7] in favor of Limtuaco- After six months, Masiclat got promoted to Senior Salesman.
On 28 February 1983, Masiclat mortgaged another parcel of land consisting of 750 square meters located in La Paz, Tarlac to Limtuaco as property bond. Although the land was already sold in favor of Masiclat's brother, his co-petitioner Roberto Masiclat, as of 17 December 1981, the land was still registered with the Tarlac Provincial Registry in the name of Masiclat's parents under Transfer of Certificate of Title No. 146042.
Sometime in 1988, Masiclat, together with several employees, staged a strike against Limtuaco that lasted for months. Being an active officer of the union, Masiclat received a termination letter dated 1 December 1988 from Limtuaco informing him to settle his merchandise accountabilities, tools, materials and service vehicle which were issued to him by Limtuaco as a sales agent.
After conducting a preliminary audit, Limtuaco sent a Letter dated 18 January 1989 to Masiclat demanding that he pay the amount of P30,989.18 constituting unremitted sales proceeds as of 31 December 1988. Limtuaco also filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Masiclat with the Office of the Prosecutor of Quezon City on the basis of Masiclat's refusal to turn over the service vehicle Limtuaco issued to him. Later, in a Resolution dated 11 September 1989, the prosecutor dismissed the complaint.[8]
Again, in a Letter dated 13 December 1989, Limtuaco required Masiclat to pay the amount of P209,217,05 representing Masiclat's total unremitted sales accountability as of 17 November 1989. Limtuaco also threatened to foreclose the second real estate mortgage comprising of the 750-square meter land located in La Paz, Tarlac to answer for the unremitted sales.
On 28 December 1989, Masiclat wrote a reply letter to Limtuaco denying its claim for the unremitted sales collections.
Meanwhile, Limtuaco filed a petition for the extrajudicial sale of the 750-square meter land with the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac, public respondent in this case.
On 23 March 1990, the Masiclats filed with the RTC of Tarlac, Branch 63 a complaint[9] for annulment and cancellation of mortgage with writ of preliminary injunction and damages entitled "Narciso Masiclat, Ursula Masiclat and Virgilio Masiclat vs. The Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac and Destileria Limtuaco & Co., Inc. " On 27 March 1990, the RTC issued a restraining order- On 5 April 1990, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction. On 2 October 1990, the RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that venue was improperly laid.
Consequently, Limtuaco revived its petition for the extrajudicial sale of the land. In the Notice of Public Auction dated 21 February 1991, the Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac reset the public auction on 26 March 1991.
On 15 March 1991, Narciso and Virgilio Masiclat filed with-the RTC of Quezon City a complaint for annulment of mortgage and damages with prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Petitioner Roberto Masiclat was impleaded as plaintiff in the case as a real party-in-interest, having bought from his parents the mortgaged land in December 1981.
On 15 April 1991, the RTC granted the application for writ of preliminary injunction. On 14 June 1991, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued enjoining the auction sale of the land.
In a Decision dated 7 June 1999, the RTC dismissed the complaint. The dispositive portion[10] states:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the court orders as follows:
1) The complaint, dismissed and as a consequence the writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction, cancelled;
2) The plaintiff Virgilio's liability to the defendant is determined to be P92,100.88 only plus legal interest computed from the date of this determination and which amount if paid to the defendant shall render the enforcement of the foreclosure of mortgage unnecessary;
3) The plaintiffs to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners appealed with the CA. On 27 July 2004, the CA denied the appeal for lack of merit. The dispositive portion[11] states;
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit and the appealed decision dated June 7,1999 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated 4 October 2005.
Hence, this petition.
The issue is whether or not the Court can take cognizance of this case as an exception to Rule 45 that only questions of law may be raised.
Petitioners insist that this case falls under the recognized exceptions established by jurisprudence under Rule 45 that: (1) the findings of facts are ' premised on the absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; and (3) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
Petitioners argue that Masiclat already testified during trial that he has no unsettled obligations with Limtuaco. Also, Juliet Presilla (Presilla), the employee who prepared the subsidiary ledgers which were presented by Limtuaco during trial to be the summary of accountabilities of Masiclat, was not presented as a witness. Neither was Presilla's deposition taken to attest the certainty and correctness of Masiclat's accountabilities. Thus, the ledgers are incompetent and inadmissible in evidence for lack of authentication.
The petition lacks merit.
At the outset, while only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the rule admits of certain exceptions: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[12]
After a perusal of the records, we find no such exceptions existing in the present case.
Petitioners submit that the findings of facts of the CA are premised on the absence or inadmissibility of evidence and that the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts. These claims deserve scant consideration. Both the trial and appellate courts concluded that Limtuaco presented ample documentation, i.e., Statement of Accountability as of 17 November 1989; subsidiary ledgers; and other accounting records, to support its claim that Masiclat had unsettled obligations. In fact, it was from these supporting documents submitted by Limtuaco where it was discovered that check payments amounting to P117,116.17 were already remitted to the company by Masiclat but which were subsequently dishonored. As a sales agent, Masiclat is not charged with collecting dishonored check remittances. Thus, such amount was properly excluded from the computation of Masiclat's total accountability as recognized in the 7 June 1999 Decision of the RTC.
Further, in deciding against petitioners, the CA made the following findings:
xxx
As plaintiffs before the trial court, xxx, appellants are the parties charged with the burden of proof to establish their cause by a preponderance of evidence, i.e., that which, as a whole, outweighs that adduced by the adverse party. Given the fact that the only evidence they adduced to negate monetary liability is the uncorroborated testimony of appellant Virgilio Masiclat, we find appellants' harping on the supposed improbabilities of appellee corporation evidence to be, at the very least, misguided and misplaced,
xxx
Appellants next call our attention to the disparity between the P30.989.18 demanded by appellee corporation in its letter dated January 18, 1989 and the P209,217.05 subsequently demanded in its letter dated December 13, 1989. That said discrepancy is, however, more apparent than real is evident from Lydia Galang's (Limtuaco's Chief Accountant) testimony that the first amount demanded by appellee corporation was only based on a preliminary audit, xxx said preliminary audit was necessitated by the fact that appellee had no access to its company records during the seven-month long strike staged by its employees. Be that as it may, we find that the trial court correctly deducted from the P209.217.05 demanded by appellee corporation the sum of P117,116.17 which, according to the latter's own statement of account dated November 17. 1989, represented unredeemed bounced checks already turned over by appellant Virgilio Masiclat and amounts due from its direct customer.
As for the authenticity of appellee corporation's subsidiary ledgers, suffice it to say that the doubts raised by appellants regarding the same are, on the whole, insufficient to warrant their rejection. Like fraud, forgery cannot be expediently presumed. Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same. This is particularly true in the case at bench where the documents impugned were, in the very first place, produced at appellants' own instance.[13]
We agree with the CA's observations and find no reversible error. Petitioners were not able to sufficiently prove that the present case falls under any of the exceptions laid down by jurisprudence for this Court to take cognizance of a case under Rule 45 where only questions of law may be raised.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 27 July 2004 and Resolution dated 4 October 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 64293.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 37-47. Penned by Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador with Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Aurora Santiago-Lagman, concurring.
[3] Id. at 48.
[4] Died on 8 February 2005.
[5] Rollo, p. 38.
[6] Died on 5 October 1991.
[7] Died on 19 February 1990.
[8] Docketed as l.S. No. 89-6293.
[9] Docketed as Civil Case No. 7290.
[10] Rollo, p. 37.
[11] Id. at 47.
[12] Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines, G.R. No. 178524, 30 January 2009, 577 SCRA 500.
[13] Rollo, pp. 44-46.
