Republic of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
ETERTON MULTI-RESOURCES
CORPORATION (formerly Eternit Corporation), Petitioner, - versus - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY
CORPORATION, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 179812
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: July 6,
2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
At bar is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court filed by Eterton Multi-Resources Corporation (ETERTON), challenging the
May 28, 2007 Decision[1]
and the October 1, 2007 Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 66917.
The facts:
ETERTON is a corporation engaged in
the manufacture of asbestos cement pipes. On November 17, 1980, it entered into
an Agreement[3] with
respondent Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corporation (FPFC) wherein ETERTON undertook to deliver the asbestos cement
pipes needed by FPFC in its Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System PG-8
Project in Novaliches, P1,260,521.83, but only P1,156,408.48 worth of asbestos
cement pipes were delivered. ETERTON
then refused to make delivery of asbestos cement pipes unless the price would
be increased. Thus, to meet the project deadline, FPFC acquiesced to ETERTON’s
demand, and paid, but under protest, an additional amount of P125,168.03.
Thereafter, FPFC demanded from
ETERTON the value of the undelivered asbestos cement pipes and the return of
the overpayment it made, but the latter refused. Thus, on September 7, 1983, FPFC
filed a collection suit with damages[4] against
ETERTON in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Traversing the complaint, ETERTON
denied FPFC’s allegations of short delivery and overpayment. It averred that the
amount claimed by FPFC had already been applied to the price escalation and
penalty charge imposed by reason of the delay in the payment of the purchases.[5]
On June 21, 1999, the RTC rendered a
decision[6]
disposing that:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises
considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering [petitioner] Eternit
Corporation and/or Eterton Multi-Resources Corporation to pay [respondent]
Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corporation the following:
1. P104,102.67, representing the excess payments made by [respondent] under
its first cause of action with interest at [the] legal rate from date of demand
until fully paid;
2. P50,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees; and
3. Cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.[7]
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC.[8] According
to the CA, the records are clear that there were items in the sales invoices
that were paid, but were not delivered by ETERTON. It rejected ETERTON’s
argument that the amount claimed by FPFC had been applied to price escalation
and penalty charge, as no sufficient evidence was offered to prove the
assertion. It declared FPFC’s pieces of evidence sufficient to establish the
claim of short delivery. The CA, however, sustained the denial by the RTC of
FPFC’s claim for reimbursement of the P125,168.03, representing the
alleged overpricing of materials, as well as the claims for moral and exemplary
damages and attorney’s fees, for lack of ample proof. The CA disposed thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the assailed
decision dated June 21, 1999 of Branch 153,
SO
ORDERED.[9]
ETERTON
filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it on October 1, 2007.[10]
ETERTON
is now before us faulting the CA for sustaining FPFC’s claim for excess payment
on account of short delivery. It contends that the CA was clearly oblivious of
the provisions of the Letter-Agreement dated November 17, 1980 and Amendatory
Letter-Agreement dated March 4, 1981 on the price escalation schedule applied
for deliveries each month. It asserts that there were instances where ETERTON
made deliveries of asbestos cement pipes but FPFC was not in a position to
accept them. ETERTON was thus constrained to return them to their stockyards. When
FPFC accepted the deliveries, the prices of the asbestos cement pipes had
increased, and thus, it was charged based on the escalated prices. ETERTON
assails the probative value and weight given by the RTC and the CA to FPFC’s
pieces of evidence.
The appeal lacks merit.
It is evident that the issue raised
in this petition is the correctness of the factual findings of the RTC and the
CA. 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. An inquiry into the veracity of the CA’s
factual findings and conclusions is not the
function of the Supreme Court, for this Court is not a trier of facts. Neither
is it our function to reexamine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the
parties.[11]
Both the RTC and the CA found that there was a short
delivery of P104,102.67. The RTC explained in this wise:
A comparison of the quantities of goods
delivered revealed that as to the goods covered by Invoice No. 71547, there is
a difference of 1,980 while as to the goods covered by Invoice No. 71548, there
is a difference of 1,195.
[ETERTON], in its Comment/Objection to
[FPFC’s] formal offer of evidence contended that the gate passes and material
receiving reports (Exh. “B” to “QQ” and “SS” to “FFF”) are not conclusive
proofs of the actual deliveries made by [ETERTON] because it can easily be
distorted by not presenting one or two or more of such exhibits. However,
[ETERTON] who is in possession of and from whom said gate passes originated
could have easily presented concrete proof like additional gate passes to prove
its contention but it failed to do so.
This Court is thus convinced that the actual
deliveries made by [ETERTON] to [FPFC] are those reflected in [FPFC’s] Exh. “B”
to “QQ” and “SS” to “FFF” which is (sic) less than the quantities in the
invoices. Therefore, as to quantities there is short delivery of 3,178.
In computing the prices of said short
deliveries, this Court is of the opinion that the unit prices of each goods (sic)
as appearing in the corresponding invoices should be the basis. We agree with
[ETERTON] that pursuant to the terms and condition of the letter-agreement it
entered into with [FPFC], the escalated prices of the pipes prevailing and
controlling at the date of deliveries shall be the basis of the computation. This
Court however believes that the unit price as appearing in the invoices is the
agreed purchase price of the asbestos cement pipes for the following reasons:
(1) In paragraph 3 of its Answer, [ETERTON] alleged that the parties mutually
agreed that the invoice price for each delivery shall be escalated on the basis
of the discount and price escalation schedule embodied in the Letter-Agreement;
(2) [ETERTON] further alleged in paragraph 5 of its Answer that the Invoice
Nos. 71547 and 71548 were later on amended by a Debit Memo sent by [ETERTON] to
[FPFC] to cover the difference between the invoice price and the escalation price.
However, the alleged Debit Memo was not even presented as evidence by [ETERTON];
(3) The acceptance by [ETERTON] of payment for Invoice No. 71547 in the amount
of P750,495.68 (Exh. “PPPP” to “ZZZZ”) and for Invoice No. 71548 in the
total amount of P204,074.40 (Exh. “ZZZZ-A”) which is the amount payable
as stated in said invoices proves that the agreed purchase price is what is
appearing thereon.
x x x x
In sum, the total amount of short deliveries
under Invoice No, 71547 and 71548 is P265,927.66. However, FPFC being
honest enough admitted that although there were short deliveries, there were
also over deliveries, that is deliveries which were not fully paid or no
payment at all were made x x x.
x x x x
Thus,
deducting the over delivery in the amount of P161,824.99 from the
short delivery in the amount of P265,927.66, the amount will be P104,102.67
which is the total claim to be awarded to FPFC x x x.[12]
We reviewed the records before us and found no compelling reason to depart from and
reverse the trial court’s findings and conclusions. The
findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, are well supported by evidence on
record.
We reiterate that 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. While this Court has recognized several exceptions to this
rule,[13] none of these exceptions finds
application here. ETERTON failed to convince us that the trial court has
overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances
which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case. Neither is there
any proof that the findings of fact below were reached arbitrarily or
capriciously. Accordingly, the CA committed no reversible error in affirming
the findings of the RTC.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The
May 28, 2007 Decision and October 1, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 66917 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A
T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao (retired) and Noel G. Tijam, concurring; rollo, pp. 24-32.
[2] Rollo, p. 33.
[3] Exh. “E”; Envelope of Exhibits.
[4] Records, pp. 1-6.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Supra note 1.
[9]
[10] Supra note 2.
[11] Development
Bank of the
[12] Records, pp. 616-619.
[13] See Montecillo v. Pama, G.R. No. 158557, February 4, 2008, 543 SCRA 512.