Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Petition denied.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
35
36
DEL CASTILLO,J.:
This petition for review on certiorari1 assails the July
31, 2002 Decision2 and the December 19, 2003 Resolution3
of the
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 12-67.
2 CA Rollo, pp. 399-412; penned by Associate Justice Portia Alio-
Hormachuelos and concurred in by Associate Justices Elvi John S.
Asuncion and Edgardo F. Sundiam.
3 Id., at pp. 547-548.
37
_______________
37
_______________
39
xxxx
Gentlemen:
Following our October 27, 1989 discussions with yourself for the final
resolution of your overdue accounts with our company in the amount of
exactly P1,718,822.57, we have arrived at a final arrangement which will
no doubt be more than fair specially for your firm.
We will now go by your claims per your letter of August 16, 1989[. We]
now confirm the following:
1.The alleged interest charges of P60,000.00 x x x for unpaid invoices
against your volume rebate for the year 1984-1985 was not charged at
all. Our records show that we granted your year-end rebate per our
Credit Note #9089 of July 1985 - P 973,511.56
and
Credit Note #9149 of September 1985 - 181,441.15
Total rebate from retention scheme
1984-1985 P1,154,952.71
These credit notes do not bear any interest charges as you claimed
during that discussion. It means you were not charged any penalty on
delayed payments of subject invoices.
2.Retroactive application against inventory of special deal rebates
have never been paid to any of our distributors nationwide since
we began business operations in this country. As a matter of
policy, we regret that we cannot grant this request.
3.Special rebates on Machete EN and Machete EC on the basis of
30-day COD arrangement were granted during the last quarter of
1988. This agreement did not apply to your purchases on the same
products from January 1,
40
41
_______________
42
xxxx
[Gentlemen]:
We have your letter of November 22, 1989 with your request that we
confirm or deny the verbal offer of our Mr. Renato G. Garcia granting all
your claims with us per your letter of August 16, 1989.
Please be informed that we confirm that offer subject to the conditions
hereunder made explicit, to wit:
1.We will grant you a credit note for P33,127.26 referring to
your Item #2 in your letter dated August 16, 1989.
2.We will also grant you a credit note for P68,244.30
referring to your Item #3 in your above-named letter.
3.We will likewise grant the amount of P6,572.29 by CM to
cover your Item #4 in your above-named letter. We have
excluded the free goods portion in your claim.
4.We will further grant the sum of P2,119.61 by CM as
claimed in Item #5 of your above-named letter.
5.We will also grant P805.45 through a CM to complete our
CM #4975 as per your Item #6 in your said letter.
6.Items 7, 8 & 9 in your letter has [sic] been earlier granted
by our CM Nos. 12160 and 5263.
7.We will also grant your additional volume rebate
amounting to P147,590.03 (see also CM#12250
P320,849.42 VR earlier granted upon full payment of the
hereunder mentioned net payable to us).
8.Lastly, we will grant you under Item #11 of your August 16
letter, the sum of P79,557.21 (credited free goods and
_______________
11 Id., at p. 376.
12 Id., at p. 377.
43
_______________
44
_______________
45
_______________
46
_______________
47
48
Issues
_______________
49
Our Ruling
_______________
31 Ontimare, Jr. v. Elep, G.R. No. 159224, January 20, 2006, 479
SCRA 257, 265. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this
Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized
exceptions:
(1)When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises and conjectures;
(2)When the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible;
(3)Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4)When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts;
(5)When the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings,
went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee;
(7)When the findings are contrary to those of the trial
court;
(8)When the findings of fact 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 petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed
by the respondents; and
50
_______________
51
_______________
52
_______________
53
54
AYes, sir.
QBecause the chances of getting more is there if you are an
independent distributor?
AYes, sir.
QIn fact, this is true not only in Pangasinan but all over the country,
Mrs. Castillo?
AYes, because we have mentioned one in Cotabato, in San Jose,
Nueva Ecija, in Tuguegarao.
QAnd from the records that you mentioned earlier on, it would seem
some of them succeeded beautifully and some closed shop
afterwards?
AYes, sir.
QIt is just a matter of luck and yes, business luck?
AYes, sir.35
_______________
37 Records, p. 259.
55
ANo.
QWhat then was the basis of your projection?
AThe basis of my projection is, as one of the valued clients of Bayer
Philippines which is a member of the World Club, we are in the
bracket of 10 million per year sales.
QSo you only had capability to sell?
AYes.
QHave you ever sold before in the 10 million per year sales?
AYes.
QThat is why I am asking you, you did not at all base your
assumption on your prior sales record of Bayer Philippines
products?
AI cannot possibly base it on the past sales. Cost of money is going up
so I based it on a bracket that Bayer Philippines put us which is in
the 10 million per year sales that is projected for another 10 years
because we are the valued clients of Bayer.
QYou also projected your profits for the next 10 years?
AYes, sir.
QAnd you did not consider the profits from the Bayer business of the
prior years in making your projection?
AYes, sir.
QI assume then that in determining your profits for the previous
years you used the figures of the summary Exhibit O as to your
sales from 1977 to 1989?
ANo, sir.
QYou did not refer at all to your profits for the previous years?
ANo, sir.
QWhy did you not refer to your previous profits to determine your
projection of probable profits?
AWe projected our projection based on our being a valued client of
Bayer Philippines, and based on the contract of the minimum 5%
profit.38
_______________
56
_______________
57
_______________
41 Sandejas v. Ignacio, Jr., G.R. No. 155033, December 19, 2007, 541
SCRA 61, 77, citing Tan v. Kaakbay Finance Corporation, 452 Phil. 637,
646-647; 404 SCRA 518, 525 (2003), Intestate Estate of Dalisay v. Hon.
Marasigan, 327 Phil. 298, 301; 257 SCRA 509, 513 (1996) and
Quintanilla v. Court of Appeals, 344 Phil. 811, 819; 279 SCRA 397, 405-
406 (1997).
42 Alday v. FGU Insurance Corporation, 402 Phil. 962, 972; 350 SCRA
113, 121 (2001).
58
59
_______________
60
_______________
45 Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Judge Asuncion, 252 Phil. 280, 291-
293; 170 SCRA 274, 285 (1989). Emphasis supplied.
46 Alday v. FGU Insurance Corporation, supra note 42 at p. 975; p.
124 and Suson v. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 816, 827; 278 SCRA 284,
292 (1997).
47 Central Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos.
88353 and 92943, May 8, 1992, 208 SCRA 652, 683.
48 Alday v. FGU Insurance Corporation, supra note 42 at p. 976; p.
124.
61
tion has yet set in.49 Besides, Bayerphil should not suffer
from the dismissal of its case due to the mistake of the trial
court.
Considering the foregoing discussion, we find no need to
remand the case to the trial court for the resolution of
Bayerphils counterclaim. In Metromedia Times
50
Corporation v. Pastorin, we discussed the rule as to when
jurisdiction by estoppel applies and when it does not, thus:
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit is yet
another matter. Whenever it appears that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed
(Section 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court). This defense may be interposed
at any time, during appeal (Roxas vs. Rafferty, 37 Phil. 957) or even
after final judgment (Cruzcosa vs. Judge Concepcion, et al., 101
Phil. 146). Such is understandable, as this kind of jurisdiction is
conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the parties, to
themselves determine or conveniently set aside. In People vs.
Casiano (111 Phil. 73, 93-94), this Court, on the issue of estoppel,
held:
The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question
of jurisdiction seemingly depends upon whether the lower
court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction,
but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it
had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from
assailing such jurisdiction, for the same must exist as a
matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the
parties or by estoppel (5 C.J.S., 861-863). However, if the
lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and
decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the
court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt
such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an
inconsistent positionthat the lower court had jurisdiction.
Here, the principle of estoppel ap-
_______________
49 N.B. Since Bayerphils claim for sum of money was based on a written
contract, it has 10 years to file a claim for collection of money under Art. 1144
(1) of the Civil Code from the time Calibre defaulted in its payments beginning
1989.
50 503 Phil. 288, 303-304; 465 SCRA 320, 335 (2005), citing Lozon v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 310 Phil. 1; 240 SCRA 1 (1995).
62
63
Judgment affirmed.
_______________