February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 198966 : February 06, 2012]
SPS. BENSON KWAN AND LOLITA KWAN, AND JOHN DOE, PETITIONERS - VERSUS - PHILAM SAVINGS BANK, INC., RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 198966 � SPS. BENSON KWAN and LOLITA KWAN, and JOHN DOE, petitioners �versus- PHILAM SAVINGS BANK, INC., respondent.
For resolution is the motion for reconsideration of our November 28, 2011 Resolution that denied the petitioners� petition for review on certiorari for its failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment warranting the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction, and raising substantially factual issues.
The petitioners argue that there are reversible errors committed by the Court of Appeals (CA) peculiarly obtaining that would relax the rules, and the decision is contrary to law and evidence. In particular, the petitioners argue that: (1) the lower courts had no basis in finding them liable for P709,616.01 because the respondent failed to present the updated Statement of Account duly acknowledged by the petitioners; (2) the respondent's cause of action is premature in the absence of a letter of demand; (3) the respondent's imposed interest and penalties are arbitrary and unconscionable; (4) the award of 10% attorney's fees is excessive; and (5) the award of 20% as liquidated damages was not proved.
We are not persuaded by the petitioners� arguments.
The issues and the discussions raised in the petitioners� motion are mere rehashes of arguments already raised and considered in our Resolution on the petition. A further discussion of these issues would not serve any useful purpose; it would simply be a repetition of the justifications and reasons taken up in the outright dismissal of the petition.
We reiterate that the petitioners are praying that we overturn the factual findings made by the Regional Trial Court, which findings have already been affirmed by the CA. We have consistently declared that factual findings of the RTC, when adapted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal as this Court is not a trier of facts.[1] We find no exceptional circumstances in this case that would justify a deviation from the general rule. The lower courts' findings and conclusions are duly supported by the evidence on record.
We, therefore, find no sound and substantial reason to reconsider our November 28, 2011 Resolution. This denial is final and no further pleadings shall be entertained. Let judgment be entered in due course.cralaw
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Pico v. Adalim-Salcedo, G.R. No. 152006, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 21, 27.