Lawyerly

GR No. 180898

2012-04-18

PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTORS

MENDOZA, J.

Paragraph 2.3 of the Building Contract clearly provides a stipulation for the payment of liquidated damages in case of delay in the construction of the project. Such is in the nature of a penalty clause fixed by the contracting parties as a compensation or substitute for damages in case of breach of the obligation.[34] The contractor is bound to pay the stipulated amount without need for proof of the existence and the measures of damages caused by the breach.[35]

GR No. 179419

2011-01-12

DURBAN APARTMENTS CORPORATION v. PIONEER INSURANCE

NACHURA, J.

Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties. [6] A review of such findings by this Court is not warranted except upon a showing of highly meritorious circumstances, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record. [7] None of the foregoing exceptions permitting a reversal of the assailed decision exists in this instance.

GR No. 167942

2010-06-29

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION v. CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In the present case, the sales invoices expressly stipulated the payment of interest and attorney's fees in case of overdue accounts and collection suits, to wit: "Interest at 24% per annum is to be charged to all accounts overdue plus 25% additional on unpaid invoice for attorney's fees aside from court cost, the parties expressly submit themselves to the venue of the courts in Rizal, in case of legal proceeding." The sales invoices are in the nature of contracts of adhesion. "The court has repeatedly held that contracts of adhesion are as binding as ordinary contracts. Those who adhere to the contract are in reality free to reject it entirely and if they adhere, they give their consent. It is true that in some occasions the Court struck down such contracts as void when the weaker party is imposed upon in dealing with the dominant party and is reduced to the alternative of accepting the contract or leaving it, completely deprived of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing."[10] Considering that petitioner is not a small time construction company, having such construction projects as the MRT III and the Mauban Power Plant, "petitioner is presumed to have full knowledge and to have acted with due care or, at the very least, to have been aware of the terms and conditions of the contract. Petitioner was free to contract the services of another supplier if respondent's terms were not acceptable".[11] By contracting with respondent for the supply of the reinforcing steel bars and not interposing any objection to the stipulations in the sales invoice, petitioner did not only bind itself to pay the stated selling price, it also bound itself to pay (1) interest of 24% per annum on overdue accounts and (2) 25% of the unpaid invoice for attorney's fees. Thus, the lower courts did not err in using the invoices as basis for the award of interest.

GR No. 182353

2010-06-29

ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE v. JAYSON MIRANDA

NACHURA, J.

Jurisprudence dictates that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties.[7] A review of such findings by this Court is not warranted except for highly meritorious circumstances when: (1) the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[8] None of the foregoing exceptions which would warrant a reversal of the assailed decision obtains in this instance.

GR No. 168756

2009-12-07

SHRIMP SPECIALISTS v. FUJI-TRIUMPH AGRI-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

CARPIO, J.

The factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally binding on the Supreme Court.[39] After a careful review of the records, the Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court.

GR No. 180824

2009-08-28

URBAN CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTORS PHILIPPINES v. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

As a general rule, courts are not at liberty to ignore the freedom of the parties to agree on such terms and conditions as they see fit as long as they are not contrary to law, morals, and good custom, public policy or public order. Nevertheless courts may equitably reduce a stipulated penalty in the contract where, as in the instant case, the principal obligation has been partly performed (97%) and where the penalty is iniquitous.[17] Article 1229 of the Civil Code, states: Art. 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.

GR No. 179653

2009-07-31

UNITED MUSLIM v. VS.BRYC-V DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

NACHURA, J.

Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties.[5] A review of such findings by this Court is not warranted except upon a showing of highly meritorious circumstances, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, or are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[6] None of the foregoing exceptions necessitating a reversal of the assailed decision obtain in this instance.

GR No. 174986

2009-07-07

ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA

NACHURA, J.

We note however that both trial court and CA have ruled otherwise. Factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding on the Court.[71] This is because the trial court's findings of fact are deemed conclusive and we are not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[72] The Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[73] The Court's jurisdiction over a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support from the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[74]

GR No. 170782

2009-06-22

SIAIN ENTERPRISES v. CUPERTINO REALTY CORP.

NACHURA, J.

Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties.[9] A review of such findings by this Court is not warranted except upon a showing of highly meritorious circumstances, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[10] None of these exceptions necessitating a reversal of the assailed decision obtains in this instance.

GR NOS. 147925-26

2009-06-08

ELPIDIO S. UY v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY

NACHURA, J.

Articles 1229 and 2227 of the Civil Code empower the courts to reduce the penalty if it is iniquitous or unconscionable. The determination of whether the penalty is iniquitous or unconscionable is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and depends on several factors such as the type, extent, and purpose of the penalty, the nature of the obligation, the mode of breach and its consequences.[37]

GR No. 154740

2008-04-16

HENRY DELA RAMA CO v. ADMIRAL UNITED SAVINGS BANK

NACHURA, J.

On the other hand, the law also allows parties to a contract to stipulate on liquidated damages to be paid in case of breach. A stipulation on liquidated damages is a penalty clause where the obligor assumes a greater liability in case of breach of an obligation. The obligor is bound to pay the stipulated amount without need for proof on the existence and on the measure of damages caused by the breach.[26]

GR No. 172816

2008-03-03

VIOLETA ESPINO v. NORMANDY P. AMORA and NELIA B. AMORA

NACHURA, J.

We uphold the well-entrenched rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties.[5] The rule, however, is not absolute and admits of exceptions upon a showing of highly meritorious circumstances, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[6] None of the laid down exceptions which would warrant a reversal of the assailed decision obtain herein.

	GR No. 180898 2012-04-18	PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTORS MENDOZA, J.
Paragraph 2.3 of the Building Contract clearly provides a stipulation for the payment of liquidated damages in case of delay in the construction of the project. Such is in the nature of a penalty clause fixed by the contracting parties as a compensation or substitute for damages in case of breach of the obligation.[34] The contractor is bound to pay the stipulated amount without need for proof of the existence and the measures of damages caused by the breach.[35]
	GR No. 179419 2011-01-12	DURBAN APARTMENTS CORPORATION v. PIONEER INSURANCE NACHURA, J.
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties. [6] A review of such findings by this Court is not warranted except upon a showing of highly meritorious circumstances, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record. [7] None of the foregoing exceptions permitting a reversal of the assailed decision exists in this instance.
	GR No. 167942 2010-06-29	ASIAN CONSTRUCTION v. CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
In the present case, the sales invoices expressly stipulated the payment of interest and attorney's fees in case of overdue accounts and collection suits, to wit: "Interest at 24% per annum is to be charged to all accounts overdue plus 25% additional on unpaid invoice for attorney's fees aside from court cost, the parties expressly submit themselves to the venue of the courts in Rizal, in case of legal proceeding." The sales invoices are in the nature of contracts of adhesion. "The court has repeatedly held that contracts of adhesion are as binding as ordinary contracts. Those who adhere to the contract are in reality free to reject it entirely and if they adhere, they give their consent. It is true that in some occasions the Court struck down such contracts as void when the weaker party is imposed upon in dealing with the dominant party and is reduced to the alternative of accepting the contract or leaving it, completely deprived of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing."[10] Considering that petitioner is not a small time construction company, having such construction projects as the MRT III and the Mauban Power Plant, "petitioner is presumed to have full knowledge and to have acted with due care or, at the very least, to have been aware of the terms and conditions of the contract. Petitioner was free to contract the services of another supplier if respondent's terms were not acceptable".[11] By contracting with respondent for the supply of the reinforcing steel bars and not interposing any objection to the stipulations in the sales invoice, petitioner did not only bind itself to pay the stated selling price, it also bound itself to pay (1) interest of 24% per annum on overdue accounts and (2) 25% of the unpaid invoice for attorney's fees. Thus, the lower courts did not err in using the invoices as basis for the award of interest.
	GR No. 182353 2010-06-29	ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE v. JAYSON MIRANDA NACHURA, J.
Jurisprudence dictates that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties.[7] A review of such findings by this Court is not warranted except for highly meritorious circumstances when: (1) the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[8] None of the foregoing exceptions which would warrant a reversal of the assailed decision obtains in this instance.
	GR No. 168756 2009-12-07	SHRIMP SPECIALISTS v. FUJI-TRIUMPH AGRI-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
The factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally binding on the Supreme Court.[39] After a careful review of the records, the Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court.
	GR No. 180824 2009-08-28	URBAN CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTORS PHILIPPINES v. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As a general rule, courts are not at liberty to ignore the freedom of the parties to agree on such terms and conditions as they see fit as long as they are not contrary to law, morals, and good custom, public policy or public order. Nevertheless courts may equitably reduce a stipulated penalty in the contract where, as in the instant case, the principal obligation has been partly performed (97%) and where the penalty is iniquitous.[17] Article 1229 of the Civil Code, states: Art. 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.
	GR No. 179653 2009-07-31	UNITED MUSLIM v. VS.BRYC-V DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties.[5] A review of such findings by this Court is not warranted except upon a showing of highly meritorious circumstances, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, or are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[6] None of the foregoing exceptions necessitating a reversal of the assailed decision obtain in this instance.
	GR No. 174986 2009-07-07	ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA NACHURA, J.
We note however that both trial court and CA have ruled otherwise. Factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding on the Court.[71] This is because the trial court's findings of fact are deemed conclusive and we are not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[72] The Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[73] The Court's jurisdiction over a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support from the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[74]
	GR No. 170782 2009-06-22	SIAIN ENTERPRISES v. CUPERTINO REALTY CORP. NACHURA, J.
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties.[9] A review of such findings by this Court is not warranted except upon a showing of highly meritorious circumstances, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[10] None of these exceptions necessitating a reversal of the assailed decision obtains in this instance.
	GR NOS. 147925-26 2009-06-08	ELPIDIO S. UY v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY NACHURA, J.
Articles 1229 and 2227 of the Civil Code empower the courts to reduce the penalty if it is iniquitous or unconscionable. The determination of whether the penalty is iniquitous or unconscionable is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and depends on several factors such as the type, extent, and purpose of the penalty, the nature of the obligation, the mode of breach and its consequences.[37]
	GR No. 154740 2008-04-16	HENRY DELA RAMA CO v. ADMIRAL UNITED SAVINGS BANK NACHURA, J.
On the other hand, the law also allows parties to a contract to stipulate on liquidated damages to be paid in case of breach. A stipulation on liquidated damages is a penalty clause where the obligor assumes a greater liability in case of breach of an obligation. The obligor is bound to pay the stipulated amount without need for proof on the existence and on the measure of damages caused by the breach.[26]
	GR No. 172816 2008-03-03	VIOLETA ESPINO v. NORMANDY P. AMORA and NELIA B. AMORA NACHURA, J.
We uphold the well-entrenched rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties.[5] The rule, however, is not absolute and admits of exceptions upon a showing of highly meritorious circumstances, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[6] None of the laid down exceptions which would warrant a reversal of the assailed decision obtain herein.

TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. UNI-FIELD ENTERPRISES