ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 111073. July 11, 2001]
ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners vs. CITY LUMBER, INC., respondents.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder for your information is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 11 2001.
G.R. No. 111073(Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation, petitioner vs. City Lumber, Inc., respondents .)
For resolution is the motion for reconsideration of this Court's Resolution dated January 17, 2000, denying the instant petition for review on certiorari on the ground that it poses factual issues not proper for resolution under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. The motion was filed by petitioner Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (Atlas).
Records show that in its decision in Civil Case No. 5561, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Dumaguete City ordered petitioner Atlas to pay respondent City Lumber, Inc. (City Lumber) P916,217.80. This amount represents Atlas unpaid obligation to City Lumber. Forthwith, Atlas filed with the Court of Appeals a notice of appeal. However, before the records of the case could be transmitted to the appellate court, the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City and all its records were destroyed by fire.
Subsequently, upon petitions for reconstitution of records by both parties, the court quo, on July 8, 1988, issued an order declaring that the records of Civil Case No. 5561 are fully reconstituted. The same records were then elevated to the Court of Appeals. On March 25, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming the trial court's decision.
On April 20, 1993, Atlas filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals Decision, and on April 29, 1993, a "Motion to Submit Authenticated Copies of the Reconstituted Documentary Exhibits of Defendant-Appellant."
The Court of Appeals denied Atlas' twin motions.
In its first motion, Atlas contends that City Lumber made fake deliveries of lumber and resorted to over-billing. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, sustaining the findings of the trial court that there were actually "lumber deliveries" and that Atlas failed to pay City Lumber the entire purchase price.
On Atlas' second motion, the Court of Appeals held:
"Upon elevation of the case to this Court, and after notice from the Clerk of Court that all the evidence, oral and documentary, are at the disposal of counsel for defendant-appellant for the preparation of the brief for the appellant (Rollo, p. 15), defendant-appellant could have inspected the elevated records to see if there is anything missing, as it was its duty to ascertain that the records are complete. Having failed to perform this duty, the case was eventually submitted for study and report, and thus, Our decision.
We do not find "satisfactory reason for the omission," to convince Us of the merit of the motion for reconsideration and to comply with the requirement laid down in the case of Gilchrist v. Cuddy, supra, which the movant so strongly invokes. Instead, defendant-appellant filed a motion to submit authenticated copies only of its own reconstituted documentary exhibits, without offering any explanation why the alleged authenticated copies were not among those reconstituted to form part of the records transmitted to the Court and in disregard to its responsibility to submit likewise authenticated copies of plaintiff-appellee's exhibits and the missing transcripts of stenographic notes. Defendant-appellant seemed to have overlooked that upon it devolved the duty to complete all, not only its own evidence.
This Court, in its assailed Resolution, held:
"For determination here is the correctness of the disposition by the Court of Appeals affirming the Decision of the trial court, and its Resolution disallowing petitioner to submit authenticated copies of duly reconstituted documentary exhibits.
The petition must fail. It is not impressed with merit.
The petition poses factual issues not proper for resolution on a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Mindful of the prevailing jurisprudence, although the Court has recognized several exemption (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phils) Inc., G.R. No. 96262, March 22, 1999) to the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, (Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual and Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and EBR Realty, Inc., G.R. 126745, July 26, 1999), petitioner here failed to show that the case under scrutiny may be treated as an exception, as to allow a review of factual issues. After scrutinizing private respondent's Comment, petitioner's Reply, private respondent's Rejoinder and the parties' Memoranda, the Court holds that the Decision of the Court of Appeals is duly supported by the evidence on record.
xxx������ xxx������ xxx
"In light of the foregoing, it is decisively clear that the decision of the lower court, as upheld by the Court of Appeals, accords with the evidence on record."
We took a second hard look at the records and found no compelling reason to modify or reverse our questioned Resolution.
Indeed, the issues raised by Atlas in its petition, reiterated in its motion for reconsideration, are factual. It bears stressing that this Court is not a trier of facts. 1 David-Chan vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 677 (1997), citing Meneses vs. Court of Appeals 246 SCRA 193 (1995); Banson vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 42 (1995); Floro vs. Llenado 244 SCRA 713 (1995).
Moreover, Atlas filed its "Motion to Submit Authenticated Copies of the Reconstituted Documentary Exhibits of Defendant-Appellant" only after the Court of Appeals had promulgated its Decision. It was not only too late in the day but obviously self-serving. Likewise, petitioner failed to explain why the alleged reconstituted exhibits were not among those transmitted by the trial court to the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
