Posted by: Jan Placido III on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
Spouses Gregorio and Josefa Yu (Spouses Yu) purchased from Ngo Yet Te (Te) bars of detergent soap worth P594,240.00, and issued to the latter three postdated checks as payment of the purchase price. When Te presented the checks at maturity for encashment, said checks were returned dishonored and stamped ACCOUNT CLOSED. Te demanded payment from Spouses Yu but the latter did not heed her demands. Te filed a case for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Attachment. In support of her prayer for preliminary attachment, Te attached to her Complaint an Affidavit executed by Sy that Spouses Yu were guilty of fraud in entering into the purchase agreement for they never intended to pay the contract price, and that, based on reliable information, they were about to move or dispose of their properties to defraud their creditors.
While the RTC did not resolve the Claim Against Surety Bond, it issued an Order dated May 3, 1993, discharging from attachment the Toyota Ford Fierra, jeep, and Canter delivery van on humanitarian grounds, but maintaining custody of Lot No. 11 and the passenger bus. Spouses Yu filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC denied.
However, on July 20, 1994, the RTC, apparently not informed of the SC Decision, rendered a Decision. Hence, Spouses Yu filed with the CA an appeal questioning only that portion of the July 20, 1994 Decision where the RTC declined to rule on their counterclaim for damages. However, Spouses Yu did not dispute the specific monetary awards granted to respondent Te; and therefore, the same have become final and executory. the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Decision, it nonetheless made a ruling on the counterclaim of Spouses Yu by declaring that the latter had failed to adduce sufficient evidence of their entitlement to damages.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Spouses Gregorio and Josefa Yu (Spouses Yu) purchased from Ngo Yet Te (Te) bars of detergent soap worth P594,240.00, and issued to the latter three postdated checks as payment of the purchase price. When Te presented the checks at maturity for encashment, said checks were returned dishonored and stamped ACCOUNT CLOSED. Te demanded payment from Spouses Yu but the latter did not heed her demands. Te filed a case for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Attachment. In support of her prayer for preliminary attachment, Te attached to her Complaint an Affidavit executed by Sy that Spouses Yu were guilty of fraud in entering into the purchase agreement for they never intended to pay the contract price, and that, based on reliable information, they were about to move or dispose of their properties to defraud their creditors.
While the RTC did not resolve the Claim Against Surety Bond, it issued an Order dated May 3, 1993, discharging from attachment the Toyota Ford Fierra, jeep, and Canter delivery van on humanitarian grounds, but maintaining custody of Lot No. 11 and the passenger bus. Spouses Yu filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC denied.
However, on July 20, 1994, the RTC, apparently not informed of the SC Decision, rendered a Decision. Hence, Spouses Yu filed with the CA an appeal questioning only that portion of the July 20, 1994 Decision where the RTC declined to rule on their counterclaim for damages. However, Spouses Yu did not dispute the specific monetary awards granted to respondent Te; and therefore, the same have become final and executory. the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Decision, it nonetheless made a ruling on the counterclaim of Spouses Yu by declaring that the latter had failed to adduce sufficient evidence of their entitlement to damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, in ruling that Spouses Yu failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support their counterclaim for actual damages is a question of law or fact.
HELD:
In ruling that Spouses Yu failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support their counterclaim for actual damages, the CA stated, thus:
In this case, the actual damages cannot be determined. Defendant-appellant Josefa Yu testified on supposed lost profits without clear and appreciable explanation. Despite her submission of the used and unused ticket stubs, there was no evidence on the daily net income, the routes plied by the bus and the average fares for each route. The submitted basis is too speculative and conjectural. No reports regarding the average actual profits and other evidence of profitability necessary to prove the amount of actual damages were presented. Thus, the Court a quo did not err in not awarding damages in favor of defendants-appellants.
We usually defer to the expertise of the CA, especially when it concurs with the factual findings of the RTC. Indeed, findings of fact may be passed upon and reviewed by the Supreme Court in the following instances: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the lower court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the factual findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (7) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions made without a citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; (10) when the findings of fact of the lower court are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. However, the present case does not fall under any of the exceptions. We are in full accord with the CA that Spouses Yu failed to prove their counterclaim.
HELD:
In ruling that Spouses Yu failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support their counterclaim for actual damages, the CA stated, thus:
In this case, the actual damages cannot be determined. Defendant-appellant Josefa Yu testified on supposed lost profits without clear and appreciable explanation. Despite her submission of the used and unused ticket stubs, there was no evidence on the daily net income, the routes plied by the bus and the average fares for each route. The submitted basis is too speculative and conjectural. No reports regarding the average actual profits and other evidence of profitability necessary to prove the amount of actual damages were presented. Thus, the Court a quo did not err in not awarding damages in favor of defendants-appellants.
We usually defer to the expertise of the CA, especially when it concurs with the factual findings of the RTC. Indeed, findings of fact may be passed upon and reviewed by the Supreme Court in the following instances: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the lower court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the factual findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (7) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions made without a citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; (10) when the findings of fact of the lower court are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. However, the present case does not fall under any of the exceptions. We are in full accord with the CA that Spouses Yu failed to prove their counterclaim.
