Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 24 2003.

G.R. No. 137362 (Ultra Clean Services and Management Corporation, petitioner, vs. Sonia F. Dalida, respondent.)

In the present petition for review on certiorari,[1] petitioner assails the Decision dated October 8, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 59, Makati City in Civil Case No. 92-1783, “Ultra Clean Services and Management Corporation vs. Sonia F. Dalida,” for damages.

Ultra Clean Services and Management Corporation, petitioner, alleged in its complaint filed with the said court that it is engaged in the business of providing janitorial and maintenance services. From March 1990 to March 1991, Sonia Dalida, respondent, served as its vice-president for operations and marketing. As such, she was assigned to maintain service contracts with the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), the Department of Health and Sunshine Mansion. However, in November 1990, she surreptitiously organized PAD Services and Construction Corporation, an entity engaged in the same business. Consequently, she failed to perform her duties as petitioner’s vice-president. Worse, she prevented its clients from renewing their service contracts. By reason of her gross negligence and bad faith, its business goodwill was damaged. Petitioner further alleged that respondent abandoned her office and failed to remit corporate funds in the amount of P173,800.00. Thus, petitioner prayed that respondent be ordered to pay P150,425.85 as actual damages, P500,000.00 as moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

In her answer to the complaint, respondent specifically denied its allegations, claiming that petitioner’s janitorial contracts with its clients were taken over by Evelyn de Leon, its president and general manager; PAD Services and Construction Corporation has been in existence since 1988 or prior to respondent’s employment with petitioner; she did not abandon her job, on the contrary, petitioner dismissed her illegally on the fabricated charge of dishonesty; and the amount of P173,800.00 she allegedly retained was her representation expenses and was the subject of a criminal case for estafa filed by petitioner with the RTC of Makati City against her. By way of counterclaim, she prayed for P500,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

After hearing, the trial court dismissed petitioner’s complaint, holding that respondent did not commit any breach of corporate trust. The amount of P173,800.00 entrusted to her was duly liquidated. In fact, the criminal case for estafa filed by petitioner against her was dismissed. The trial court concluded that petitioner, in instituting the present action against respondent, acted in bad faith. Thus, the latter’s counterclaim was granted.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition.

The crucial issue for our resolution is whether respondent committed breach of corporate trust.

The issue posed by petitioner is essentially factual. Consequently, the instant petition is vulnerable to dismissal. Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, a party may directly appeal to this Court from a decision of the trial court only on pure questions of law.[2]Not being a trier of facts, this Court is not bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[3]

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

[1] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

[2] Palon vs. Nino, G.R. No. 138042, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 204; Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 139437, December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA 542; Cebu Woman ‘s Club vs. De La Victoria, G.R. No. 120060, March 9, 2000, 327 SCRA 533; Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107737, October 1, 1999, 316 SCRA 43; Valmonte vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 41621, February 18, 1999, 303 SCRA 278; Tinio vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 132102, May 19, 1999, 307 SCRA 460; Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103949, June 17, 1999, 308 SCRA 317; Villarico vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105912, June 28, 1999, 309 SCRA 193, citing Laza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122427, March 13, 1997, 269 SCRA 654.

[3] Alcaraz vs. Tangga-an, G.R. No. 128568, April 9, 2003; Twin Towers Condominium Corporation vs. Court Of Appeals, G.R. No. 123552, February 27, 2003; Fabian vs. Agustin, G.R. No. 143092, February 14, 2003; Garrido vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118462, November 22, 2001, 370 SCRA 199; Goldenrod, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127232, September 28, 2001, 366 SCRA 217.