[G.R. No. 111073. January 17, 2000]

ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEV’T. CORP. vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court dated JAN 17 2000.

G.R. No. 111073 (Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and City Lumber Inc.)

At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and Resolution, dated March 25, 1993, and July 15, 1993, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 18593, entitled "City Lumber, Inc. vs. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation."

In CA-G.R. CV No. 18593, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of Branch 32 of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental in Dumaguete City in Civil Case No. 5561, disposing thus:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, decision is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff of the plaintiff and against the defendant:

1. Ordering the defendant Atlas Consolidated Mining And Development Corporation to pay plaintiff City Lumber (Dumaguete City) Incorporated the following:

(a) P916,217.80 representing the unpaid balance of its account;

(b) the sum equivalent to 12% per annum (1% per month) on the sum of P916,217.80 computed from May 16, 1972 up to actual payment;

(c) the sum equivalent to 15% of the total amounts due in letters (a) and (b) above for attorney’s fees; and

(d) to pay the costs.

(2) Dismissing defendant’s counterclaim.1 Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City Branch 32, March 11, 1987, Annex "A", Rollo, p.47.

The facts of the case can be synthesized as follows:

On May 16, 1987, fire razed the premises of Branch 32 of the Regional trial Court of Negros Oriental in Dumaguete City, destroying all the records of the case below. When the conflagration occurred, petitioner had already perfected its appeal but the records of the case were not yet elevated to the appellate court.

Several petitions were brought before the trial court for the admission of the attachments, annexes and transcript of stenographic notes that were saved in the personal files and records of the parties; and on July 8, 1988, the Regional Trial Court a quo declared subject records fully reconstituted.

On April 30, 1993, the defendant-appellant (petitioner here) sent in a motion to Submit Authenticated Copies of Reconstituted Documentary Exhibits to the Court of Appeals placing reliance on the Order of the lower court, dated July 8, 1988, considering the records of the case fully reconstituted, and holding:

"When the Joint Supplemental Petition for Reconstitution filed with this Court on June 14, 1988, was called this morning lawyers of both parties did not appear. There being no objection thereto up to the present from any quarter, it is hereby granted. Accordingly, the reproduced transcripts of stenographic notes attached thereto are hereby admitted in place of originals thereof which have been destroyed by fire. Along with the pleadings, judicial orders, processes and documents annexed to the petition for reconstitution dated 1 December 1987, and the aforementioned amended reproduced transcripts of stenographic notes, this case is fully reconstituted. xxx"2 Records, p. 439.

Undaunted, petitioner found its way to this Court via the present Petition for review on Certiorari, which petition was denied on December 14, 1994, the Court holding then:

"Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari, as well as private respondents’ comment thereon, petitioner’s reply thereto and private respondents’ rejoinder, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for being factual and for failure of the petition to sufficiently show that the respondent court had committed any reversible error in rendering the questioned judgement."3 Rollo, p. 108.

On March 24, 1995, the herein petitioner interposed a motion for reconsideration. Acting thereupon on June 14, 1994 and set aside the aforesaid Resolution of December 14, 1994 and reinstated subject petition for review on certiorari, ratiocinating as follows:

"xxx Petitioner points out that on April 20, 1993, it filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ decision and authenticated copies of reconstituted documentary evidence, but both motions were denied. According to petitioner, the Court of Appeals simply relied entirely on the pleadings and findings of fact of the trial court in deciding the case.

The general policy to file a motion for reconsideration shall be granted after the Court has rendered its decision and that where the Court has declared its judgment to be immediately executory, no motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. However, this rule should yield to an exception where there are strong reasons and factual circumstances which indicate that a very serious miscarriage of justice will ensue unless corrective measures are taken.

Considering the exceptional circumstances of this case, and taking into account the grave injustice that may result from strict reliance upon the findings of fact contained in the judgment of the Court of Appeals appealed from, we resolved to RECONSIDER AND SET ASIDE our resolution of December 14, 1994 denying the petition and our resolution dated February 8, 1995 denying petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration of the resolution of December 14, 1994, to REINSTATE the petition for review on certiorari and require respondents to file a COMMENT thereon within ten (10) days from notice hereof. xxx"4 Rollo, pp. 138-139.

On July 25, 1995, respondent City Lumber, Inc. submitted its Comment to the effect that the:

"xxx assignment of errors will at once reveal that there is only one main issue, which is, whether or not there were fraudulent or fake deliveries xxx"5 Private Respondent’s Comment, p. 8; Rollo, p. 147.

On August 24, 1995, petitioner filed a Reply, theorizing thus:

"xxx the foregoing discussion by the respondent is beside the point and is not relevant to the main issue now before this Honorable Court, namely, whether the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not allowing the elevation of the authenticated copies of the reconstituted documents, Exhibits 1-60, inclusive of its sub-markings to said appellate court in order to justly and correctly resolve the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration dated April 16, 1993 on the respondent Court of Appeals decision which was mainly based on the ruling of the trial court."6 Rollo, pp. 162-163.

Filed on September 20, 1995, respondent City Lumber’s Rejoinder, argued:

"xxx Petitioner, is its ‘Reply’, argued that private respondent’s ‘Comment’ delving on the factual issues of the main case ‘is beside the point’ (Paragraph 2, page 1). Why should these factual issues be beside the point as Issues No. I, II, III, IV? (Page 7, ‘Petition’)."7 Rollo, p. 170.

On November 24, 1995, petitioner sent in a Memorandum stating practically the same set of facts as averred in the petition for review. The same was true with the respondent, City Lumber, Inc., when it filed its memorandum on December 7, 1995.

For determination here is the correctness of the disposition by the Court of Appeals affirming the Decision of the trial court, and its Resolution disallowing’ petitioner to submit authenticated copies of duly reconstituted exhibits.

The petition must fail. It is not impressed with merit.

The petition poses factual factual issue not proper for resolution on a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Mindful of the prevailing jurisprudence, although the Court has recognized several exceptions (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phils) Inc., G.R. No. 96262, March 22, 1999) to the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari (Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual and Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and EBR Realty, Inc, G.R. No. 126745, July 26, 1999), petitioner here failed to show that the case under scrutiny may be treated as an exception, as to allow a review of factual issues. After scrutinizing private respondent’s Comment, petitioner’s Reply, private respondent’s Rejoinder and the parties’ Memoranda, the Court holds that the decision of the Court of Appeals is duly supported by the evidence on record.

In the case of Maximo Fuentes v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Virgilio Uy, et al., 335 Phil 1163, 1167-1168, G.R. No. 109849, February 26, 1997, with Justice Panganiban as ponente, the Court said:

"xxx the Court reiterates the oft-stated doctrine that factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.

Jurisprudence teaches us that "(a)s a rule, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before to it from the Court of Appeals xxx is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive. As such, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. xxx"

In light of the foregoing, it is decisively clear that the decision of the lower court, as upheld by the Court of Appeals, accords with the evidence on record.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on certiorari under consideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 18593 AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court