|
OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS (PHILS), INC. , Petitioner, |
G.R. No. 184215
|
|
- versus - NESTOR N. BARRETTO, doing business as
N.N.B. LIGHTERAGE, Respondents. |
Present: Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: February 9, 2011 |
|
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PEREZ, J.:
The requirements for an award of
actual damages are central to this petition for review filed under Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
primarily assailing the Decision dated 12 December 2007 rendered by the then
Special Third Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 87168,[1]
the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is
PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision dated 27
December 2005 and order dated 28 April 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Las
Piñas, City, Branch 255, to the extent that it dismissed the counterclaims of
defendant-appellant, are hereby reversed and set aside. Plaintiff-appellee is ordered to pay
defendant-appellant the amount of P306,000.00 as actual damages and P30,000.00
as attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED. [2]
The Facts
Doing
business under the name and style of N.N.
B. Lighterage, respondent Nestor N. Barretto (Barretto) is the owner of the
Barge “Antonieta”[3] which was last licensed
and permitted to engage in coastwise trading for a period of one year expiring
on 21 August 1998.[4] On 27 November 1997, Barretto and petitioner Oceaneering Contractors (Phils.), Inc. (Oceaneering)
entered into a Time Charter Agreement whereby, for the contract price of P306,000.00,[5] the
latter hired the aforesaid barge for a renewable period of thirty calendar
days, for the purpose of transporting construction materials from Manila to
Ayungon, Negros Oriental.[6] Brokered by freelance ship broker Manuel
Velasco,[7]
the agreement included Oceaneering’s acknowledgment of the seaworthiness of the
barge as well as the following stipulations, to wit:
“a) [Barreto] shall be responsible for the
salaries, subsistence, SSS premium, medical, workmen’s compensation
contribution and other legal expenses of the crew;
b) [Oceaneering] shall be responsible for
all port charges, insurance of all equipments, cargo loaded to the above
mentioned deck barge against all risks (Total or Partial), or theft, security
and stevedoring during loading and unloading operations and all other expenses
pertinent to the assessment, fines and forfeiture for any violation that may be
imposed in relation to the operation of the barge;
x x x x
(f) Delivery and re-delivery be made in
(g) Damage to deck barge caused by
carelessness or negligence of stevedores hired by [Oceaneering] will be
[Oceaneering’s] liability. Upon clear
findings by owners or barge patron of any damages to the barge that will
endanger its seaworth(i)ness and stability, such damage/s shall be repaired
first before loading and leaving port.
Under such conditions, the Barge Patron has the right to refuse loading
and/or leaving port;
x x x x
(i)
[Barreto]
reserves the right to stop, abort and deviate any voyage in case of imminent
danger to the crew and/or vessel that
may be occasioned by any storm, typhoon, tidal wave or any similar events.”[8]
In accordance
with the agreement, Oceaneering’s hired stevedores who loaded the barge with
pipe piles, steel bollards, concrete mixers, gravel, sand, cement and other
construction materials in the presence of and under the direct supervision of
the broker Manuel Velasco and Barretto’s Bargemen.[9] In addition to the polythene ropes with
which they were lashed, the cargoes were secured by steel stanchions which
Oceaneering caused to be welded on the port and starboard sides of the barge.[10] On 3 December 1997, the barge eventually
left Manila for Negros Oriental, towed by the tug-boat “Ayalit" which, for
said purpose, was likewise chartered by Oceaneering from Lea Mer Industries, Inc.[11] On 5 December 1997, however, Barretto’s
Bargeman, Eddie La Chica, executed a Marine Protest,[12]
reporting the following circumstances under which the barge reportedly capsized
in the vicinity of Cape Santiago, Batangas, viz.:
That on or
about 1635 December 3, 1997, Barge ‘Antonieta’ departed Pico de Loro, Pasig
River and towed by Tug-Boat ‘Ayalit’ bound for Ayungon, Negros Oriental with
cargo onboard steel pipes and various construction materials. While underway on or about 0245 December 4,
1997 encountered rough sea at the vicinity of Cape Santiago, Batangas and
ma(d)e the barge x x x roll and pitch which caused the steel pipes and various
construction materials to shift on the starboardside causing the breakdown of
the steel stanch(i)ons welded on the deck of the barge leaving holes on the
deck that cause(d) water to enter the hold.
That on or
about 1529 December 5, 199[7], with the continuous entrance of sea water on the
hold, the barge totally capsized touch(ed) bottom.
On 9 December 1997, Barretto apprised
Oceaneering of the supposed fact that the mishap was caused by the incompetence
and negligence of the latter’s personnel in loading the cargo and that it was
going to proceed with the salvage, refloating and repair of the barge.[13] In turn contending that the barge tilted
because of the water which seeped through a hole in its hull, Oceaneering
caused its counsel to serve Barretto a letter dated 12 March 1998, demanding
the return of the unused portion of the charter payment amounting to P224,400.00
as well as the expenses in the sum of P125,000.00 it purportedly
incurred in salvaging its construction materials.[14] In a letter dated 25 March 1998, however,
Barretto’s counsel informed Oceaneering that its unused charter payment was
withheld by his client who was likewise seeking reimbursement for the P836,425.00
he expended in salvaging, refloating and repairing the barge.[15] In response to Barretto’s 29 June 1998 formal
demand for the payment of the same expenses,[16]
Oceaneering reiterated its demand for the return of the unused charter payment
and the reimbursement of its salvaging expenses as aforesaid.[17]
On
6 October 1998, Barretto commenced the instant suit with the filing of his
complaint for damages against Oceaneering, which was docketed as Civil Case No.
LP-98-0244 before Branch 255 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las P2,750,792.50 and
attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of said sum.[18] Specifically denying the material allegations
of the foregoing complaint in its 26 January 1999 answer, Oceaneering, on the
other hand, averred that the accident was caused by the negligence of Barretto’s
employees and the dilapidated hull of the barge which rendered it unseaworthy.
As a consequence, Oceaneering prayed for the grant of its counterclaims for the
value of its cargo in the sum of P4,055,700.00, salvaging expenses in
the sum of P125,000.00, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses.[19]
The
issues thus joined and the mandatory pre-trial conference subsequently
terminated upon the agreement of the parties,[20]
the RTC proceeded to try the case on the merits. In support of his complaint, Barretto took
the witness stand to prove the seaworthiness of the barge as well as the
alleged negligent loading of the cargo by Oceaneering’s employees.[21] Barretto also presented the following
witnesses: (a) Toribio Barretto II, Vice President for Operations of N.B.B. Lighterage, who primarily
testified on the effort exerted to salvage the barge;[22]
and, (b) Manuel Velasco, who testified on his participation in the execution of
the Time Charter Agreement as well as the circumstances before and after the
sinking of the barge.[23] By way of defense evidence, Oceaneering in
turn presented the testimonies of the following witnesses: (a) Engr. Wenifredo
Oracion, its Operation’s Manager, to prove, among other matters, the value of
the cargo and the salvage operation it conducted in the premises;[24]
and, (b) Maria Flores Escaño, Accounting Staff at Castillo Laman Tan Pantaleon
and San Jose Law Offices, to prove its claim for attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses.[25]
To disprove
the rough sea supposedly encountered by the barge as well as the negligence
imputed against its employees, Oceaneering further adduced the testimonies of
the following witnesses: (a) Rosa Barba, a Senior Weather Specialist at the
Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
(PAGASA);[26] (b) Cmdr. Herbert
Catapang, Officer-in-Charge of the Hydrographic Division at the National
Mapping Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA);[27]
and, (c) Engr. Carlos Gigante, a freelance marine surveyor and licensed naval
architect.[28] Recalled as a rebuttal witness, Toribio
Barretto II, in turn, asserted that the hull of the barge was not damaged and
that the sinking of said vessel was attributable to the improper loading of
Oceaneering’s construction materials.[29] Upon the formal offer respectively made by
the parties, the pieces of documentary evidence identified and marked in the
course of the testimonies of the above named witnesses[30]
were, accordingly, admitted by the RTC.[31]
On 27
December 2005, the RTC rendered a decision, dismissing both Barretto’s
complaint and Oceaneering’s counterclaims for lack of merit. While finding that Barretto failed to adduce
sufficient and convincing evidence to prove that the accident was due to the
negligence of Oceaneering’s employees, the RTC nevertheless brushed aside the
latter’s claim that the barge was not seaworthy as acknowledged in the Time
Charter Agreement. Alongside its claim
for reimbursement of the sums expended for the salvage operation it conducted
which was denied for lack of evidence to prove the same, Oceaneering’s claim
for the value of its cargo was likewise denied on the ground, among other
matters, that the same was not included in the demand letters it served Barretto;
and, that it has no one but itself to blame for failing to insure its cargo
against all risks, as provided in the parties’ agreement. With its claims for exemplary damages and
attorney’s fees further denied for lack of showing of bad faith on the part of
Barretto,[32] Oceaneering filed the
motion for partial reconsideration of the foregoing decision[33]
which was denied for lack of merit in the RTC’s 28 April 2006 order.[34]
Dissatisfied,
Oceaneering perfected its appeal from the aforesaid 27 December 2005 decision
on the ground that the RTC reversibly erred in not finding that the accident
was caused by the unseaworthy condition of the barge and in denying its
counterclaims for actual and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses. Docketed before the CA as
CA-G.R. CV No. 87168,[35]
the appeal was partially granted in the herein assailed 12 December 2007
decision upon the finding, among others, that the agreement executed by the
parties, by its express terms, was a time charter where the possession and
control of the barge was retained by Barretto; that the latter is, therefore, a
common carrier legally charged with extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods transported by him; and, that the sinking of the vessel created
a presumption of negligence and/or unseaworthiness which Barretto failed to
overcome and gave rise to his liability for Oceaneering’s lost cargo despite
the latter’s failure to insure the same.
Applying the rule, however, that actual damages should be proved with a
reasonable degree of certainty, the CA denied Oceaneering’s claim for the value
of its lost cargo and merely ordered the refund of the P306,000.00 it
paid for the time charter, with indemnity for attorney’s fees in the sum of P30,000.[36]
Alongside
that interposed by Barretto, the motion for reconsideration of the foregoing
decision filed by Oceaneering’s[37]
was denied for lack of merit in the CA’s resolution dated 11 August 2008,[38]
hence, this petition.
The Issues
Oceaneering
urges the reversal of the assailed 12 December 2007 decision and 11 August 2008
resolution on the ground that the CA erred in the following wise:
I. IN
HOLDING THAT THERE WERE NO VALID DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE REAL VALUE OF THE
MATERIALS LOST AND THOSE ACTUALLY RECOVERED.
II. IN
DENYING OCEANEERING’S COUNTERCLAIMS FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES AMOUNTING TO (A) P3,704,700.00
REPRESENTING THE VALUE OF THE MATERIALS IT LOST DUE TO THE SINKING OF [BARRETO’S]
BARGE; AND (b) P125,000.00 REPRESENTING THE EXPENSES IT INCURRED FOR
SALVAGING ITS CARGO.
III. IN
AWARDING OCEANEERING’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT
OF P30,000.00 ONLY.[39]
The Court’s Ruling
We
find the modification of the assailed decision in order.
Oceaneering
argues that, having determined Barretto’s liability for presumed negligence as
a common carrier, the CA erred in disallowing its counterclaims for the value
of the construction materials which were lost as a consequence of the sinking
of the barge. Alongside the testimony
elicited from its Operation’s Manager, Engr. Winifredo Oracion, Oceaneering
calls attention to the same witness’ inventory which pegged the value of said
construction materials at P4,055,700.00, as well as the various sales
receipts, order slips, cash vouchers and invoices which were formally offered
before and admitted in evidence by the RTC.
Considering that it was able to salvage only nine steel pipes amounting
to P351,000.00, Oceaneering insists that it should be indemnified the
sum of P3,703,700.00 for the value of the lost cargo, with legal
interest at 12% per annum, from the date of demand until fully paid. In addition, Oceaneering maintains that
Barretto should be held liable to refund the P306,000.00 it paid as
consideration for the Time Charter Agreement and to pay the P125,000.00
it incurred by way of salvaging expenses as well as its claim for attorney’s
fees in the sum of P750,000.00.
In finding Oceaneering’s petition
impressed with partial merit, uppermost in our mind is the fact that actual or
compensatory damages are those damages which the injured party is entitled to
recover for the wrong done and injuries received when none were intended.[40] Pertaining as they
do to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of
measurement,[41] they
are intended to put the injured party in the position in which he was before he
was injured.[42] Insofar
as actual or compensatory damages are concerned, Article 2199 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides
as follows:
“Art. 2199.
Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has
duly proved. Such compensation is
referred to as actual or compensatory damages.”
Conformably with the foregoing
provision, the rule is long and well settled that there must be pleading and
proof of actual damages suffered for the same to be recovered.[43] In addition to the
fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof, it must also be actually
proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or
the best evidence obtainable.[44] The burden of proof of the damage
suffered is, consequently, imposed on the party claiming the same[45]
who should adduce the best evidence available in support thereof, like sales
and delivery receipts, cash and check vouchers and other pieces of documentary
evidence of the same nature. In the
absence of corroborative evidence, it has been held
that self-serving statements of account are not sufficient basis for an award
of actual damages.[46] Corollary to the principle that a claim for
actual damages cannot be predicated on flimsy, remote, speculative, and
insubstantial proof,[47]
courts are, likewise, required to state the factual bases of the award.[48]
Applying
the just discussed principles to the case at bench, we find that Oceaneering
correctly fault the CA for not granting its claim for actual damages or, more
specifically, the portions thereof which were duly pleaded and adequately
proved before the RTC. While concededly
not included in the demand letters dated 12 March 1998[49]
and 13 July 1998[50]
Oceaneering served Barretto, the former’s counterclaims for the value of its
lost cargo in the sum of P4,055,700.00 and salvaging expenses in the sum
of P125,000.00 were distinctly pleaded and prayed for in the 26 January
1999 answer it filed a quo.[51] Rather than the entire P4,055,700.00
worth of construction materials reflected in the inventory[52]
which Engr. Oracion claims to have prepared on 29 November 1997, based on the
delivery and official receipts from Oceaneering’s suppliers,[53]
we are, however, inclined to grant only the following items which were duly
proved by the vouchers and receipts on record, viz.: (a) P1,720,850.00
worth of spiral welded pipes with coal tar epoxy procured on 22 November 1997;[54]
(b) P629,640.00 worth of spiral welded steel pipes procured on 28
October 1997;[55]
(c) P155,500.00 worth of various stainless steel materials procured on
27 November 1997;[56] (d) P66,750.00 worth of gaskets and
shackles procured on 20 November 1997;[57]
and, (e) P4,880.00 worth of anchor bolt procured on 27 November 1997.[58]
The foregoing sums all add up to of P2,577,620.00
from which should be deducted the sum of P351,000.00 representing the
value of the nine steel pipes salvaged by Oceaneering, or a total of P2,226,620.00 in actual damages
representing the value of the latter’s lost cargo. Excluded from the computation are the
following items which, on account of the dates of their procurement, could not
have possibly been included in the 29 November 1997 inventory prepared by Engr.
Oracion, to wit: (a) P1,129,640.00 worth of WO#1995 and PO#OCPI-060-97
procured on 9 December 1997;[59]
and, (b) P128,000.00 worth of bollard procured on 16 December 1997.[60] Likewise excluded are the anchor bolt with
nut Oceaneering claims to have procured for an unspecified amount on 3 November
1997[61]
and the P109,018.50 worth of Petron oil it procured on 28 November 1997[62]
which does not fit into the categories of lost cargo and/or salvaging expenses
for which it interposed counterclaims a
quo. Although included in its demand
letters as aforesaid and pleaded in its answer, Oceaneering’s claim for
salvaging expenses in the sum of P125,000.00 cannot, likewise, be
granted for lack of credible evidence to support the same.
Tested alongside the twin requirements of pleading and proof
for the grant of actual damages, on the other hand, we find that the CA also erred
in awarding the full amount of P306,000.00 in favor of Oceaneering, as
and by way of refund of the consideration it paid Barretto for the Time Charter
Agreement. Aside from not being clearly
pleaded in the answer it filed a quo,
said refund was claimed in Oceaneering’s demand letters only to the extent of
the unused charter payment in the reduced sum of P224,400.00[63]
which, to our mind, should be the correct measure of the award. Having breached an obligation which did not constitute
a loan or forbearance of money, moreover, Barretto can only be held liable for
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on said amount as well as the P2,226,620.00
value of the lost cargo instead of the 12% urged by Oceaneering. Although the lost cargo was not included in
the demand letters the latter served the former, said interest rate of 6% per
annum shall be imposed from the time of the filing of the complaint which is equivalent
to a judicial demand.[64] Upon the finality of this decision, said sums
shall earn a further interest of 12% per annum until full payment in accordance
with the following pronouncements handed down in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[65]
to wit:
“2. When an obligation, not constituting a
loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages
awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6%
per annum. No interest, however, shall be
adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can
be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is
established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the
time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code)
but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the
demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date of the
judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may
be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the
computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount of finally
adjudged.
3. When
the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory,
the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or
paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its
satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a
forbearance of credit.”
For lack of sufficient
showing of bad faith on the part of Barretto, we find that the CA, finally,
erred in granting Oceaneering’s claim for attorney’s fees, albeit in the much
reduced sum of P30,000.00. In the
absence of stipulation, after all, the rule is settled that there can be no recovery of attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation other than judicial costs except in the instances enumerated under
Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[66]
Being the exception rather than the rule,[67]
attorney’s fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit,[68]
in view of the policy that no premium should be
placed on the right to litigate.[69]
Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur
expenses to protect his rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where,
as here, no sufficient showing of bad faith can be reflected in the party’s
persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness
of his cause.[70]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED and
the assailed 12 December 2007 Decision is, accordingly, MODIFIED: (a) to GRANT
Oceaneering’s claim for the value of its lost cargo in the sum of P2,226,620.00
with 6% interest per annum computed from the filing of the complaint and to
earn further interest at the rate of 12% per annum from finality of the decision
until full payment; (b) to REDUCE the
refund of the consideration for the Time Charter Agreement from P306,000.00
to P224,400.00, with 6% interest per annum computed from 12 March 1998, likewise to earn further interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from finality of this decision; and, (c) to DELETE the CA’s award of salvaging
expenses and attorney’s fees, for lack of factual and legal basis. The rest is AFFIRMED in toto.
|
SO
ORDERED. JOSE Associate
Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: RENATO C.
CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision 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] CA rollo, CV No. 87168, pp. 165-183.
[2]
[3] Exhibit “A,” Records, Civil Case No. 87168, p. 199.
[4] Exhibit “C”, id. at 201.
[5] Exhibit “2”, id. at 448.
[6] Exhibits “E” to “E-2”, id. at 203-205.
[7] TSN, 20 April 2001, pp. 5-6.
[8] Records, pp. 204-205.
[9] TSN, 27 March 2003, pp. 18-24.
[10]
[11] Exhibit “3,” Records, Civil Case No. 87168, p. 449.
[12] Exhibit “F”, id. at 206.
[13] Exhibit “21”, id. at 465.
[14] Exhibit “23”, id. at 468-469.
[15] Exhibit “22”, id. at 466-467.
[16] Exhibit “M”, id. at 215.
[17] Exhibit “25”, id. at 471.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] TSN, 10 December 1999; 12 January, 2001; 4 April 2000; 1 September 2000.
[22] TSN, 8 December 2000.
[23] TSN, 20 April 2001.
[24] TSN, 24 October 2002; 27 March 2003; 8 May 2003.
[25] TSN, 15 May 2003.
[26] TSN, 3 July 2003.
[27] TSN, 14 August 2003.
[28] TSN, 28 August 2003.
[29] TSN, 4 December 2003.
[30] Records, Civil Case No. 87168, pp. 195-217; 434-506; 539-543.
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35] CA rollo, CV No. 87168, pp. 40-82.
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39] Rollo, p. 18.
[40] Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. vs. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups, Inc., 566 SCRA 473, 485.
[41] Spouses Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 338, 353 (1999).
[42] Filipinas (Pre-Fab Bldg.) Systems, Inc. vs. MRT Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167829-30, 13 November 2007, 537 SCRA 609, 640, citing Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 11053, 16 October 1996, 249 SCRA 331.
[43]
[44] Manila Electric Corporation vs. T.E.A.M. Electronics Corporation, G.R. No. 131723, 13 December 2007, 540 SCRA 62, 79.
[45] Luxuria Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 989, 1001-1002, (1999).
[46] MCC Industrial Sales Corporation vs. Ssangayong Corporation, G.R. No. 153051, 18 October 2007, 536 SCRA 408, 467-468.
[47] Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Dynamic Planners and Construction Corp., G.R. Nos. 169408 & 170144, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 541, 567 .
[48]
[49] Exhibit “23”, Records, Civil Case No. 87168, pp. 468-469.
[50] Exhibit “25”, id. at 471.
[51]
[52] Exhibit “5”, id. at 451.
[53] TSN, 27 March 2003, pp. 7-8.
[54] Exhibits “5” and “6”, Records, Civil Case No. 87168, pp. 451-452.
[55] Exhibit “10”, id. at 454.
[56] Exhibits “11” and “12”, id. at 455-456.
[57] Exhibit “15”, id. at 458.
[58] Exhibits “16” and “17”, id. at 459.
[59] Exhibits “8” and “9”, id. at 453.
[60] Exhibits “13” and “14”, id. at 457, Exhibit “27”; id. at 472.
[61] Exhibit “28”, id. at 473.
[62] Exhibit “29” and submarkings, id. at 474-475.
[63] Exhibit “25”, id. at 471.
[64] Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-46558, 31 July 1981, 106 SCRA, 391,
412.
[65] G.R. No. 97412, 12 July 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 96-97.
[66] Scott Consultants & Resource Development Corporation, Inc. vs. CA, 312 Phil. 466, 480 (1995).
[67] Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 504, 518-519 (1996).
[68] Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation vs. Kamalig Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 165608, 13 December 2007, 540 SCRA 139, 159.
[69] Frias vs. San Diego-Sison, G.R. No. 155223, 3 April 2007, 520 SCRA 244, 259-260.
[70] Felsan
Realty & Development Corporation vs. Commonwealth of