Posted by: James L. Jalon on July 25, 2018
FACTS:
FACTS:
Sps. George and Susan Tan entered into a contract with GVT Engineering Services (GVT) through its owner/manager Gerino Tactaquin(Tactaquin) for the construction of their residential house. Due to the former's lack of knowledge in construction, they hired Rudy Cadag (Cadag) to supervise on the said construction. Months during the construction, the Sps Tan and Cadag had many cancellations on the original agreement the Sps. Tan and GVT has entered in to. Such event caused monetary damage to Tactaquin, later, Tactaquin, as the owner of (GVT) then stopped the construction and filed a petition in the RTC for damages. the decision was favorable to Tactaquin, despite the Sps. Tan emphasis that GVT as a sole proprietorship lacks the legal personality, thus cannot file a civil action towards them.
The decision of the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC ignoring the allegation of the Sps.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Supreme Court can try question of facts regarding the allegation raised by the spouses, to have allegedly ignored by the RTC and CA?
HELD:
HELD:
The court upholds the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts with respect to petitioner's liability for breach of their contract with respondent. Questions of facts are beyond the pale of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as a petition for review may only raise question of law. Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding on this Court. More so, as in this case, where petitioners have failed to show that the courts below overlooked or disregarded certain facts or circumstances of such import would have altered the outcome of the case. The Court, thus, finds no reason to set aside the lower courts factual findings.
