ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 139270.November 24, 1999]

BASICANO TRANSPORT vs. PABALAN

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 24, 1999.

G.R. No. 139270(Basicano Transport Service Cooperative, Inc. vs. Luis G. Pabalan.)

Petitioner assails the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals dated April 20, 1999 and July 6, 1999, respectively, which upheld the existence of a lessor-lessee relationship between herein petitioner and private respondent Pabalan, thus affirming the authority of Celestino Coloma, the former President of petitioner, to enter into a Contract of Lease for and in behalf of petitioner. The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner acted in bad faith when it refused to pay the rentals to Pabalan.

Petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals erred when it upheld the existence of a lessor-lessee relationship between the petitioner and respondent Pabalan despite the fact that Celestino Coloma acted without authority from petitioner. It also assailed the decision of the Court of Appeals which ruled that the respondent had the right to eject petitioner mainly on the basis of respondent's possession of a registered title and that petitioner was not justified in failing to pay the rentals to respondent.

On October 19, 1999, private respondent filed its Comment on the Petition stating, among others, that petitioner's insistence that the contract of lease was entered into by its then President Celestino Coloma without being authorized by the Board of Directors is betrayed by the findings of the Court of Appeals that it never denied the existence of the contract of lease it voluntarily entered into and that it never assailed the authority of Celestino Coloma to execute the Contract of Lease before the trial court. Private respondent also claimed that since it was established that the occupancy and possession of petitioner of the property in question is by mere tolerance, it cannot now assail the title of herein respondent over the property.

Well-settled is the rule that findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed ¹ Laza vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 654 [1997]; Alicbusan vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 336 [1997]. unless there is a showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion. ² We find no reason to disturb such findings of the Court of Appeals.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE