By: Unknown Contributor
FACTS:
Amalio L. Sarmiento was the prime contractor of the then Ministry of Public Highways hired to construct the Cainta River Floodway and Manggahan Floodway Systems. Sarmiento entered into a sub-contract with his former classmate, Emilio G. Samson to construct a portion of the work.
Samsons finances, however, were insufficient, hence, he convinced Celerino Yu, respondent herein, to join him in a partnership venture.
They agreed that the sums collected from Sarmiento would be deposited under their joint accounts. Samson failed to deposit two (2) checks amounting to P700,000.00 he received from Sarmiento. Sensing that Samson was not being fair, Yu withdrew P638,000.00 from their joint account with the Citibank.
On June 10, 1982, Yu filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Malolos, Bulacan a complaint for Sum of Money and Liquidation of Partnership with Damages against Samson and Sarmiento.
The trial court held that from the documentary evidence and the conduct of Samson and Yu, a partnership had been established between them although it was not reduced in writing. Both were drawing salaries from the partnership; and when the partnership bought a dump truck, the Deed of Sale was in their names.
With respect to Sarmiento, the trial court stated that he opted not to present any evidence. Thus, Yus evidence as to the amounts still owing from Sarmiento has remained uncontradicted.
Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming the RTC judgment in its entirety. Only Sarmiento filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Supreme Court may review findings of facts by the Court of Appeals.
HELD:
NO.
Petitioner Sarmiento ascribes to the Court of Appeals the sole error of finding that collectibles are due from defendant Sarmiento (petitioner), specifically the amount of P400,000.00 for the Cainta River Project, and the amount of P2,228,643.56 for the Manggahan Floodway Schedule B. Petitioner maintains that respondent Yu did not present any evidence to sustain such finding. In fact, his complaint (paragraph 2) admits that plaintiff (respondent herein) has no claim as against the said defendant (petitioner herein) to be ventilated in the instant case. Clearly, the Court of Appeals finding that collectibles are still due from petitioner Sarmiento has no basis whatsoever.
Ordinarily, findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are not reviewable by this Court for it is not a trier of facts. One exception is when such findings are not sustained by evidence. This exception is being raised by petitioner.
It can readily be seen that the Court of Appeals considered the evidence presented before the trial court before concluding that there are still collectibles due from petitioner.
FACTS:
Amalio L. Sarmiento was the prime contractor of the then Ministry of Public Highways hired to construct the Cainta River Floodway and Manggahan Floodway Systems. Sarmiento entered into a sub-contract with his former classmate, Emilio G. Samson to construct a portion of the work.
Samsons finances, however, were insufficient, hence, he convinced Celerino Yu, respondent herein, to join him in a partnership venture.
They agreed that the sums collected from Sarmiento would be deposited under their joint accounts. Samson failed to deposit two (2) checks amounting to P700,000.00 he received from Sarmiento. Sensing that Samson was not being fair, Yu withdrew P638,000.00 from their joint account with the Citibank.
On June 10, 1982, Yu filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Malolos, Bulacan a complaint for Sum of Money and Liquidation of Partnership with Damages against Samson and Sarmiento.
The trial court held that from the documentary evidence and the conduct of Samson and Yu, a partnership had been established between them although it was not reduced in writing. Both were drawing salaries from the partnership; and when the partnership bought a dump truck, the Deed of Sale was in their names.
With respect to Sarmiento, the trial court stated that he opted not to present any evidence. Thus, Yus evidence as to the amounts still owing from Sarmiento has remained uncontradicted.
Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming the RTC judgment in its entirety. Only Sarmiento filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Supreme Court may review findings of facts by the Court of Appeals.
HELD:
NO.
Petitioner Sarmiento ascribes to the Court of Appeals the sole error of finding that collectibles are due from defendant Sarmiento (petitioner), specifically the amount of P400,000.00 for the Cainta River Project, and the amount of P2,228,643.56 for the Manggahan Floodway Schedule B. Petitioner maintains that respondent Yu did not present any evidence to sustain such finding. In fact, his complaint (paragraph 2) admits that plaintiff (respondent herein) has no claim as against the said defendant (petitioner herein) to be ventilated in the instant case. Clearly, the Court of Appeals finding that collectibles are still due from petitioner Sarmiento has no basis whatsoever.
Ordinarily, findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are not reviewable by this Court for it is not a trier of facts. One exception is when such findings are not sustained by evidence. This exception is being raised by petitioner.
It can readily be seen that the Court of Appeals considered the evidence presented before the trial court before concluding that there are still collectibles due from petitioner.
