ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 173424. October 2, 2006.]
GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC. AND JOSE C. GO v. CHEERING PACK CORPORATION
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT. 2, 2006 .
G.R. No. 173424 (Gotesco Properties, Inc. and Jose C. Go v. Cheering Pack Corporation)
This is a petition for review [1] cralaw of the Decision [2] cralaw dated 27 January 2006 and Resolution dated 5 July 2006 of the Court of Appeals affirming with modification the ruling of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2 ("trial court") in a collection suit.
Petitioner Gotesco Properties, Inc. ("petitioner
corporation") owns a commercial complex ("
In its Decision dated 25 June 2002, the trial court ruled for respondent and ordered petitioner corporation to pay the coating fee, attorney's fees of P100,000, and the costs.
Petitioner corporation appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision of 27 January 2006, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling but lowered the attorney's fees to P50,000 and ordered petitioner corporation to pay legal interest on the coating fee. Petitioner corporation sought reconsideration but the Court of Appeals denied its motion in the Resolution of 5 July 2006.
Hence, this petition. Petitioner corporation reiterates its claim of having contracted with Yang and not with respondent. Petitioner corporation also claims, for the first time, that its contract with Yang was for the application of sample non-stick coating only. Lastly, petitioner corporation contends that respondent's evidence on the per square meter price of the coating work is not credible.
The petition has no merit.
The facts show that there was, between the parties, a perfected
oral contract for respondent to apply non-stick paint on a 2,937 square meter portion
of
But even if, as petitioner corporation alleges, it did not
expressly agree with respondent on the terms of the contract, petitioner
corporation, as the Court of Appeals correctly held, remains liable as the
obligor in an innominate contract of facio
ut des (I do and you give). Petitioner
corporation's acceptance of the work respondent performed in
However, we note that although the Court of Appeals lowered the amount of attorney's fees awarded to respondent from P100,000 to P50,000, the dispositive portion of its Decision still indicated an attorney's fees of P100,000. Similarly, the trial court erred in providing in the dispositive portion of its 25 June 2002 Decision that the coating fee is P1,615,310 when it should be P1,615,350. These are typographical errors which need correction.
WHEREFORE, we RESOLVE to DENY the petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error. However, the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated 27 January 2006 should read thus:
WHEREFORE, the June 25, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, City of Manila, is hereby MODIFIED to read as follows:
"WHEREFORE, considered judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Gotesco Properties, Inc. (only) ordering the latter - -
1.�������� to pay plaintiff the sum of P1,615,350.00 representing actual costs of the epoxy installation plus legal interest reckoned from the date of the filing of the complaint.
2.�������� to pay plaintiff the sum of P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees; and
3.�������� to pay the cost of suit.["]
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
