[G.R. No. 164946.
PHILHAWK TRANSPORT vs. CA
Third Division
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 4 2005.
G.R. No. 164946 (Philhawk
Transport Corporation and
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court assailing the
On
Petitioners denied their liability. They argued that there was no contract of carriage between them and Felipe and that it was the negligence of Felipe which was the immediate and proximate cause of the accident. He allegedly chased after the moving bus to board it, resulting in the accident.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of private respondent:
In view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the herein defendants. Defendants are held joint (sic) and severally liable and are ordered to pay the herein plaintiff the following amount (sic):
1) P50,000.00 as death
benefits;
2) P33,000.00 as actual
damages representing hospitalization, funeral, burial and other related
expenses;
3) P100,000.00 as
compensatory damages for loss of expected earnings of the victim Felipe Sulit,
Jr.;
4) P50,000.00 as moral
damages;
5) P40,000.00 as
reasonable attorney's fees;
6) Costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[3]
This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
Undaunted, petitioners filed this petition on the following grounds:
I. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ACCORDING EVIDENTIARY VALUE ON AN AFFIDAVIT WHERE THE AFFIANT WAS NEVER PRESENTED ON THE WITNESS STAND xxx
II. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS MISERABLY ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONERS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES xxx [4]
At the outset, it must be pointed out that petitioners raise
purely questions of fact. In petitions for review on certiorari under
Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by
this Court.[5]
Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are
binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on
appeal.[6]
Inquiry into the veracity of the CA's factual findings and conclusions is not
the function of the Supreme Court for the Court is not a trier of facts.[7]
Neither is it our function to
re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.[8]
While this Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule,
to wit: (1) when the findings are
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is
grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension
of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making
its findings, the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are
contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the
findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence
on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts
not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion,[9] none of these exceptions finds application
here. No compelling reason whatsoever is shown by petitioners for this Court to
disturb and reverse the trial court's findings and conclusions, as affirmed by
the CA.
It is the petitioners' contention that the CA "committed
serious reversible error in according evidentiary value on an affidavit where
the affiant was never presented on the witness stand."[10]
However, as found by the CA, the trial court did not rely solely on this
affidavit and instead considered it along with other pieces of evidence such as
the (1) autopsy report and post-mortem findings of the National Bureau of
Investigation (2) testimony of the conductor stating that at the time of the
accident, many commuters were chasing the bus, proving that the entrance door
of the bus was open (3) handwritten statement of petitioner Ausa admitting that
the deceased had actually boarded the bus when he unequivocally declared that
"Hindi ko napansin na sumabit pa rin
ang nasabing tao at nasagasaan ng hulihang kanang bahagi ng gulong,"
in holding that the deceased was in fact already inside the bus. We rule that the CA did not commit reversible error in
affirming the trial court's findings.
Considering that the contract of carriage was established, the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible for the payment of damages sought by the passenger, or in this case, the passenger's widow. Under Article 1756 of the Civil Code, in case of death or injuries to passengers, a common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed extraordinary diligence.
Both the trial court and CA found that private respondent had
satisfactorily proven the existence of the factual basis for the damages
adjudged against petitioners. Again, this is a factual matter binding and
conclusive upon this Court. Likewise, the determination of the amount of
damages commensurate with the factual findings upon which it is based is
primarily the task of the trial court.[11]
Having established the legal and factual bases for the award of damages and
finding that the amounts adjudged are not excessive, we hold that it was not error for the CA to accord respect to
these factual findings.
To conclude, we emphasize that the grant of due course to a petition for review is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion. Due course will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor.12 As the questions raised are factual and there is no reversible error in the respondent court's decision, the petition is hereby DENIED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA
ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Magdangal M. de Leon of the Fourteenth Division; Rollo, p. 23.
[2]
[3] Decided by Judge Noel G. Tijam, Rollo, p. 66.
[4] Petitioners’ Petition, Rollo, p. 8.
[5] Pleyto v. Lomboy, G.R. No. 148737,
[6] Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, 423 Phil.
554, 558 (2001); Garrido v. Court of
Appeals, 421 Phil. 872, 881 (2001);
[7] First Metro Investment Corp. v. Este
[8] Jose v. People, G.R. No. 148371,
[9] Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 139437, 8 December 2000, 347 SCRA 542, 549; Nokom v. National Labor Relations Commission, 390 Phil. 1228, 1242 (2000); CIR v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phil.), Inc., 364 Phil. 541, 546-547 (1999); Sta. Maria v. Court of Appeals, 349 Phil. 275, 282-283 (1998).
[10] Petitioners’ Petition, Rollo, p. 11.
[11] Tocao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127405,
12 Rule 45, Sec. 6, Rules of Court.