[G.R. No. 136386. August 14, 2000]

PNB vs. J. O. MKTG.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 14 2000.

G.R. No. 136386 (Philippine National Bank versus J. O. Marketing represented by Roberto Onglatco.)

This petition for review on certiorari seeks to set aside the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals on August 31, 1998, in CA-G.R. CV No. 40400 which affirmed the decision dated January 31, 1992 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, in an action to recover excess payment instituted by respondent against petitioner.

The antecedent facts of this case are as follows:

Respondent is a commercial enterprise owned by Roberto Onglatco (Onglatco). It is engaged in sugar trading with several entities including PNB Iloilo City, petitioner's branch. Respondent's business transactions with petitioner have been going on smoothly for years. In cases where respondent made overpayments to petitioner, the latter immediately refunded the excess payments. Where there were underpayments, respondent made additional payments to petitioner. These transactions were consummated simply through telephone calls between Roberto Onglatco and Rodolfo Delmo (Delmo), credit investigator at PNB Iloilo City.

Sometime in June 1990, Onglatco was informed by Delmo that PNB Buendia, Makati is requesting PNB Iloilo City to look for a buyer of refined sugar pledged to the bank by DAB Marketing Corporation (DAE) and AZUCAR Management and Development Corporation (AZUCAR). Onglatco agreed to purchase the sugar mentioned to him by Delmo at P630.00 gross per bag. After reviewing the computation by Delmo of the total price pertaining to 44,038.01 fifty-kilo bags at P489.00 net per bag, Onglatco called up Solid Bank in Iloilo City to issue in favor of PNB for the account of DAE and AZUCAR, a manager's check for P21,534,5 86.89.

Onglatco, Delmo and Roberto Mendoza of PNB Buendia went to pick up the said check at Solid Bank, Iloilo City. Later on, they proceeded to PNB Iloilo City where a receipt was issued to Onglatco and the quedans covering the sugar released to him. Thereafter, Onglatco withdrew the sugar from the warehouse and disposed of the same to his buyers.

A few days later, Onglatco discovered that he overpaid petitioner by P533,135.25. In other words, he found he should have paid only P21,001,451.17. He allegedly arrived at this conclusion upon close examination of the quedans and multiplying the number of piculs therein indicated by the refining yield of 1.14, and computing the deductions from the gross price of P630.00 per bag: He realized that the payment he made was based on 1.17 refining yield instead of 1.14 which is the correct refining yield. It is understood that this refining yield is important in determining the net price per bag and the tolling fee.

Respondent asked petitioner for a refund. However, petitioner refused on the ground that the sale was already consummated and the amount was applied as payment to the account of DAE and AZUCAR. On June 13, 1990, therefore, demands to return the alleged excess payment having been unheeded by petitioner, respondent filed the action for collection of the refundable amount in court.

After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered a decision in favor of respondent. It ordered petitioner (Buendia branch) to pay respondent the sum of P533,135.25 with interest thereon at the legal rate of 12% per annum from the filing of the complaint and until paid, plus P 12,000.00 in attorney's fees and the costs.

Expectedly, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ruled that there was a mistake in the computation of the price of sugar. It held that the error is due to the use of 1.17 as basis for refining yield instead of 1.14, and in not deducting 10% VAT of the tolling fee from the gross price in arriving at the net price per bag. The appellate court explained that in arriving at the correct refining yield, the quantity of piculs of sugar, as indicated in the refined sugar quedans, is to be multiplied by 1.14, the result would be kilo-bags of refined sugar. It declared that petitioner is legally bound to refund respondent the amount of P533,135.25 under the principle of solutio indebiti. It then affirmed the lower court's decision. 1 Rollo , pp. 38-44. Undaunted, petitioner filed the instant petition. At issue is the correctness, propriety and validity of the appellate court's affirmance of the trial court's order that petitioner refund the claimed amount in favor of respondent.

Petitioner contends that the appellate court erred in not finding that the amount of P2 1,534,586.89 was the fixed and determinate price agreed upon by the parties at the time the contract of sale was perfected and consummated. It also insists that DAE and AZUCAR are the parties liable for the overpayment. Unfortunately, this contention does not merit our sympathetic consideration.

For the resolution of the basic issue raised by petitioner necessitates a determination of the proper formula in arriving at the net price per bag of refined sugar. This will entail an examination of the sugar subject of the quedans in order to verify the refining yield factor used in computing the number of bags. This will also involve an assessment of the testimonies of Onglatco and Delmo on how the parties bargained concerning the price. Certainly, this requires an inquiry into the correctness of the evaluation of the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the parties which are the basis of the lower court in reaching its decision which, in turn, was affirmed by the appellate court. In other words, we are being asked by the petitioner to review the facts and the evidence in the instant case.

Clearly, this is not the function of this Court in the review of cases elevated from the Court of Appeals. We are tasked to review only errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, considering that its findings of fact are deemed conclusive. The only exceptions are: (1) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment 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 the 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 are contradicted by the evidence on record. 2 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phil.) Inc., 305 SCRA 70, 74-75 (1999).

We have thoroughly reviewed the instant petition, but we find that petitioner's case does not fall among the foregoing exceptions. Nor does petitioner's bare allegation of alleged error committed by the appellate court provide us a compelling reason to override the general rule favoring the conclusive character of its finding of fact. We are thus constrained to uphold both the trial and the appellate courts' finding that there has been an overpayment to petitioner which, under the equitable principle of solutio indebiti, petitioner is duty-bound to refund to respondent.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court


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