G.R. No.

159617

August 8, 2007

ROBERTO C. SICAM and AGENCIA de R.C. SICAM, INC., petitioners, vs. LULU V. JORGE and CESAR JORGE, respondents. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Roberto C. Sicam, Jr. (petitioner Sicam) and Agencia deR.C. Sicam, Inc. (petitioner corporation) seeking to annul the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated March 31, 2003, and its Resolution2 dated August 8, 2003, in CA G.R. CV No. 56633. It appears that on different dates from September to October 1987, Lulu V. Jorge (respondent Lulu) pawned several pieces of jewelry with Agencia de R. C. Sicam located at No. 17 Aguirre Ave., BF Homes Paraaque, Metro Manila, to secure a loan in the total amount of P59,500.00. On October 19, 1987, two armed men entered the pawnshop and took away whatever cash and jewelry were found inside the pawnshop vault. The incident was entered in the police blotter of the Southern Police District, Paraaque Police Station as follows: Investigation shows that at above TDPO, while victims were inside the office, two (2) male unidentified persons entered into the said office with guns drawn. Suspects(sic) (1) went straight inside and poked his gun toward Romeo Sicam and thereby tied him with an electric wire while suspects (sic) (2) poked his gun toward Divina Mata and Isabelita Rodriguez and ordered them to lay (sic) face flat on the floor. Suspects asked forcibly the case and assorted pawned jewelries items mentioned above. Suspects after taking the money and jewelries fled on board a Marson Toyota unidentified plate number.3 Petitioner Sicam sent respondent Lulu a letter dated October 19, 1987 informing her of the loss of her jewelry due to the robbery incident in the pawnshop. On November 2, 1987, respondent Lulu then wrote a letter 4 to petitioner Sicam expressing disbelief stating that when the robbery happened, all jewelry pawned were deposited with Far East Bank near the pawnshop since it had been the practice that before they could withdraw, advance notice must be given to the pawnshop so it could withdraw the jewelry from the bank. Respondent Lulu then requested petitioner Sicam to prepare the pawned jewelry for withdrawal on November 6, 1987 but petitioner Sicam failed to return the jewelry. On September 28, 1988, respondent Lulu joined by her husband, Cesar Jorge, filed a complaint against petitioner Sicam with the Regional Trial Court of Makati seeking indemnification for the loss of pawned jewelry and payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 88-2035. Petitioner Sicam filed his Answer contending that he is not the real party-in-interest as the pawnshop was incorporated on April 20, 1987 and known as Agencia de R.C. Sicam, Inc; that petitioner corporation had exercised due care and diligence in the safekeeping of the articles pledged with it and could not be made liable for an event that is fortuitous. Respondents subsequently filed an Amended Complaint to include petitioner corporation. Thereafter, petitioner Sicam filed a Motion to Dismiss as far as he is concerned considering that he is not the real party-in-interest. Respondents opposed the same. The RTC denied the motion in an Order dated November 8, 1989. 5 After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision 6 dated January 12, 1993, dismissing respondents complaint as well as petitioners counterclaim. The RTC held that petitioner Sicam could not be made personally liable for a claim arising out of a corporate transaction; that in the Amended Complaint of respondents, they asserted that "plaintiff pawned assorted jewelries in defendants' pawnshop"; and that as a consequence of the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the corporate debt or credit is not the debt or credit of a stockholder. The RTC further ruled that petitioner corporation could not be held liable for the loss of the pawned jewelry since it had not been rebutted by respondents that the loss of the pledged pieces of jewelry in the possession of the corporation was occasioned by armed robbery; that robbery is a fortuitous event which exempts the victim from liability for the loss, citing the case of Austria v. Court of Appeals;7 and that the parties transaction was that of a pledgor and pledgee and under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code, the pawnshop as a pledgee is not responsible for those events which could not be foreseen. Respondents appealed the RTC Decision to the CA. In a Decision dated March 31, 2003, the CA reversed the RTC, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is GRANTED, and the Decision dated January 12, 1993,of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 62, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, ordering the appellees to pay appellants the actual value of the lost jewelry amounting to P272,000.00, and attorney' fees of P27,200.00.8 In finding petitioner Sicam liable together with petitioner corporation, the CA applied the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity reasoning that respondents were misled into thinking that they were dealing with the pawnshop owned by petitioner Sicam as all the pawnshop tickets issued to them bear the words "Agencia de R.C. Sicam"; and that there was no indication on the pawnshop tickets that it was the petitioner corporation that owned the pawnshop which explained why respondents had to amend their complaint impleading petitioner corporation. The CA further held that the corresponding diligence required of a pawnshop is that it should take steps to secure and protect the pledged items and should take steps to insure itself against the loss of articles which are entrusted to its custody as it derives earnings from the pawnshop trade which petitioners failed to do; that Austria is not applicable to this case since the robbery incident happened in 1961 when

the criminality had not as yet reached the levels attained in the present day; that they are at least guilty of contributory negligence and should be held liable for the loss of jewelries; and that robberies and hold-ups are foreseeable risks in that those engaged in the pawnshop business are expected to foresee. The CA concluded that both petitioners should be jointly and severally held liable to respondents for the loss of the pawned jewelry. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated August 8, 2003. Hence, the instant petition for review with the following assignment of errors: THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND WHEN IT DID, IT OPENED ITSELF TO REVERSAL, WHEN IT ADOPTED UNCRITICALLY (IN FACT IT REPRODUCED AS ITS OWN WITHOUT IN THE MEANTIME ACKNOWLEDGING IT) WHAT THE RESPONDENTS ARGUED IN THEIR BRIEF, WHICH ARGUMENT WAS PALPABLY UNSUSTAINABLE. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED, AND WHEN IT DID, IT OPENED ITSELF TO REVERSAL BY THIS HONORABLE COURT, WHEN IT AGAIN ADOPTED UNCRITICALLY (BUT WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING IT) THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR BRIEF WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING MORE THERETO DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAID ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF UNREBUTTED EVIDENCE ON RECORD.9 Anent the first assigned error, petitioners point out that the CAs finding that petitioner Sicam is personally liable for t he loss of the pawned jewelries is "a virtual and uncritical reproduction of the arguments set out on pp. 5-6 of the Appellants brief."10 Petitioners argue that the reproduced arguments of respondents in their Appellants Brief suffer from infirmities, as follows: (1) Respondents conclusively asserted in paragraph 2 of their Amended Complaint that Agencia de R.C. Sicam, Inc. is the present owner of Agencia de R.C. Sicam Pawnshop, and therefore, the CA cannot rule against said conclusive assertion of respondents; (2) The issue resolved against petitioner Sicam was not among those raised and litigated in the trial court; and (3) By reason of the above infirmities, it was error for the CA to have pierced the corporate veil since a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members. Anent the second error, petitioners point out that the CA finding on their negligence is likewise an unedited reproduction of respondents brief which had the following defects: (1) There were unrebutted evidence on record that petitioners had observed the diligence required of them, i.e, they wanted t o open a vault with a nearby bank for purposes of safekeeping the pawned articles but was discouraged by the Central Bank (CB) since CB rules provide that they can only store the pawned articles in a vault inside the pawnshop premises and no other place; (2) Petitioners were adjudged negligent as they did not take insurance against the loss of the pledged jelweries, but it is judicial notice that due to high incidence of crimes, insurance companies refused to cover pawnshops and banks because of high probability of losses due to robberies; (3) In Hernandez v. Chairman, Commission on Audit (179 SCRA 39, 45-46), the victim of robbery was exonerated from liability for the sum of money belonging to others and lost by him to robbers. Respondents filed their Comment and petitioners filed their Reply thereto. The parties subsequently submitted their respective Memoranda. We find no merit in the petition. To begin with, although it is true that indeed the CA findings were exact reproductions of the arguments raised in respondent s (appellants) brief filed with the CA, we find the same to be not fatally infirmed. Upon examination of the Decision, we find that it expressed clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based as required by Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution. The discretion to decide a case one way or another is broad enough to justify the adoption of the arguments put forth by one of the parties, as long as these are legally tenable and supported by law and the facts on records. 11 Our jurisdiction under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to the review of errors of law committed by the appellate court. Generally, the findings of fact of the appellate court are deemed conclusive and we are not duty-bound to analyze and calibrate all over again the evidence adduced by the parties in the court a quo.12 This rule, however, is not without exceptions, such as where the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are conflicting or contradictory 13 as is obtaining in the instant case. However, after a careful examination of the records, we find no justification to absolve petitioner Sicam from liability. The CA correctly pierced the veil of the corporate fiction and adjudged petitioner Sicam liable together with petitioner corp oration. The rule is that the veil of corporate fiction may be pierced when made as a shield to perpetrate fraud and/or confuse legitimate issu es. 14 The theory of corporate entity was not meant to promote unfair objectives or otherwise to shield them. 15 Notably, the evidence on record shows that at the time respondent Lulu pawned her jewelry, the pawnshop was owned by petitioner Sicam himself. As correctly observed by the CA, in all the pawnshop receipts issued to respondent Lulu in September 1987, all bear the words

"Agencia de R. C. Sicam," notwithstanding that the pawnshop was allegedly incorporated in April 1987. The receipts issued after such alleged incorporation were still in the name of "Agencia de R. C. Sicam," thus inevitably misleading, or at the very least, creating the wrong impression to respondents and the public as well, that the pawnshop was owned solely by petitioner Sicam and not by a corporation. Even petitioners counsel, Atty. Marcial T. Balgos, in his letter 16 dated October 15, 1987 addressed to the Central Bank, expressly referred to petitioner Sicam as the proprietor of the pawnshop notwithstanding the alleged incorporation in April 1987. We also find no merit in petitioners' argument that since respondents had alleged in their Amended Complaint that petitioner corporation is the present owner of the pawnshop, the CA is bound to decide the case on that basis. Section 4 Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Thus, the general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof, admits of two exceptions, to wit: (1) when it is shown that such admission was made through palpable mistake, and (2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made. The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made such an admission. 17 The Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court explained the second exception in this wise: x x x if a party invokes an "admission" by an adverse party, but cites the admission "out of context," then the one making the "admission" may show that he made no "such" admission, or that his admission was taken out of context. x x x that the party can also show that he made no "such admission", i.e., not in the sense in which the admission is made to appear. That is the reason for the modifier "such" because if the rule simply states that the admission may be contradicted by showing that "no admission was made," the rule would not really be providing for a contradiction of the admission but just a denial.18 (Emphasis supplied). While it is true that respondents alleged in their Amended Complaint that petitioner corporation is the present owner of the pawnshop, they did so only because petitioner Sicam alleged in his Answer to the original complaint filed against him that he was not the real party-ininterest as the pawnshop was incorporated in April 1987. Moreover, a reading of the Amended Complaint in its entirety shows that respondents referred to both petitioner Sicam and petitioner corporation where they (respondents) pawned their assorted pieces of jewelry and ascribed to both the failure to observe due diligence commensurate with the business which resulted in the loss of their pawned jewelry. Markedly, respondents, in their Opposition to petitioners Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, insofar as petitioner Sicam is concerned, averred as follows: Roberto C. Sicam was named the defendant in the original complaint because the pawnshop tickets involved in this case did not show that the R.C. Sicam Pawnshop was a corporation. In paragraph 1 of his Answer, he admitted the allegations in paragraph 1 and 2 of the Complaint. He merely added "that defendant is not now the real party in interest in this case." It was defendant Sicam's omission to correct the pawnshop tickets used in the subject transactions in this case which was the cause of the instant action. He cannot now ask for the dismissal of the complaint against him simply on the mere allegation that his pawnshop business is now incorporated. It is a matter of defense, the merit of which can only be reached after consideration of the evidence to be presented in due course. 19 Unmistakably, the alleged admission made in respondents' Amended Complaint was taken "out of context" by petitioner Sicam to suit his own purpose. Ineluctably, the fact that petitioner Sicam continued to issue pawnshop receipts under his name and not under the corporation's name militates for the piercing of the corporate veil. We likewise find no merit in petitioners' contention that the CA erred in piercing the veil of corporate fiction of petitioner corporation, as it was not an issue raised and litigated before the RTC. Petitioner Sicam had alleged in his Answer filed with the trial court that he was not the real party-in-interest because since April 20, 1987, the pawnshop business initiated by him was incorporated and known as Agencia deR.C. Sicam. In the pre-trial brief filed by petitioner Sicam, he submitted that as far as he was concerned, the basic issue was whether he is the real party in interest against whom the complaint should be directed.20 In fact, he subsequently moved for the dismissal of the complaint as to him but was not favorably acted upon by the trial court. Moreover, the issue was squarely passed upon, although erroneously, by the trial court in its Decision in this manner: x x x The defendant Roberto Sicam, Jr likewise denies liability as far as he is concerned for the reason that he cannot be made personally liable for a claim arising from a corporate transaction. This Court sustains the contention of the defendant Roberto C. Sicam, Jr. The amended complaint itself asserts that "plaintiff pawned assorted jewelries in defendant's pawnshop." It has been held that " as a consequence of the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the corporate debt or credit is not the debt or credit of the stockholder, nor is the stockholder's debt or credit that of a corporation.21 Clearly, in view of the alleged incorporation of the pawnshop, the issue of whether petitioner Sicam is personally liable is inextricably connected with the determination of the question whether the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should or should not apply to the case.

The next question is whether petitioners are liable for the loss of the pawned articles in their possession. Petitioners insist that they are not liable since robbery is a fortuitous event and they are not negligent at all. We are not persuaded. Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen o r which, though foreseen, were inevitable. Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable. It is therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same. 22 To constitute a fortuitous event, the following elements must concur: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the failure of the debtor to comply with obligations must be independent of human will; (b) it must be impossible to foresee the event that constitutes the caso fortuito or, if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill obligations in a normal manner; and, (d) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury or loss. 23 The burden of proving that the loss was due to a fortuitous event rests on him who invokes it. 24 And, in order for a fortuitous event to exempt one from liability, it is necessary that one has committed no negligence or misconduct that may have occasioned the loss. 25 It has been held that an act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to take steps to forestall the possi ble adverse consequences of such a loss. One's negligence may have concurred with an act of God in producing damage and injury to another; nonetheless, showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the damage or injury was a fortuitous event would not exempt one from liability. When the effect is found to be partly the result of a person's participation -- whether by active intervention, neglect or failure to act - the whole occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God. 26 Petitioner Sicam had testified that there was a security guard in their pawnshop at the time of the robbery. He likewise testified that when he started the pawnshop business in 1983, he thought of opening a vault with the nearby bank for the purpose of safekeeping the valuables but was discouraged by the Central Bank since pawned articles should only be stored in a vault inside the pawnshop. The very measures which petitioners had allegedly adopted show that to them the possibility of robbery was not only foreseeable, but actually foreseen and anticipated. Petitioner Sicams testimony, in effect, contradicts petitioners defense of fortuitous event. Moreover, petitioners failed to show that they were free from any negligence by which the loss of the pawned jewelry may have been occasioned. Robbery per se, just like carnapping, is not a fortuitous event. It does not foreclose the possibility of negligence on the part of herein petitioners. In Co v. Court of Appeals,27 the Court held: It is not a defense for a repair shop of motor vehicles to escape liability simply because the damage or loss of a thing lawf ully placed in its possession was due to carnapping. Carnapping per se cannot be considered as a fortuitous event. The fact that a thing was unlawfully and forcefully taken from another's rightful possession, as in cases of carnapping, does not automatically give rise to a fortuitous event. To be considered as such, carnapping entails more than the mere forceful taking of another's property. It must be proved and established that the event was an act of God or was done solely by third parties and that neither the claimant nor the person alleged to be negligent has any participation. In accordance with the Rules of Evidence, the burden of proving that the loss was due to a fortuitous event rests on him who invokes it which in this case is the private respondent. However, other than the police report of the alleged carnapping incident, no other evidence was presented by private respondent to the effect that the incident was not due to its fault. A police report of an alleged crime, to which only private respondent is privy, does not suffice to establish the carnapping. Neither does it prove that there was no fault on the part of private respondent notwithstanding the parties' agreement at the pre-trial that the car was carnapped. Carnapping does not foreclose the possibility of fault or negligence on the part of private respondent.28 Just like in Co, petitioners merely presented the police report of the Paraaque Police Station on the robbery committed based on the report of petitioners' employees which is not sufficient to establish robbery. Such report also does not prove that petitioners were not at fault. On the contrary, by the very evidence of petitioners, the CA did not err in finding that petitioners are guilty of concurrent or contributory negligence as provided in Article 1170 of the Civil Code, to wit: Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.29 Article 2123 of the Civil Code provides that with regard to pawnshops and other establishments which are engaged in making loans secured by pledges, the special laws and regulations concerning them shall be observed, and subsidiarily, the provisions on pledge, mortgage and antichresis. The provision on pledge, particularly Article 2099 of the Civil Code, provides that the creditor shall take care of the thing pledged with the diligence of a good father of a family. This means that petitioners must take care of the pawns the way a prudent person woul d as to his own property. In this connection, Article 1173 of the Civil Code further provides:

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2 shall apply. If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a g ood father of a family shall be required. We expounded in Cruz v. Gangan30 that negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do; or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.31 It is want of care required by the circumstances. A review of the records clearly shows that petitioners failed to exercise reasonable care and caution that an ordinarily prud ent person would have used in the same situation. Petitioners were guilty of negligence in the operation of their pawnshop business . Petitioner Sicam testified, thus: revealing that there were no security measures adopted by petitioners in the operation of the pawnshop. Evidently, no sufficient precaution and vigilance were adopted by petitioners to protect the pawnshop from unlawful intrusion. There was no clear showing that there was any security guard at all. Or if there was one, that he had sufficient training in securing a pawnshop. Further, there is no show ing that the alleged security guard exercised all that was necessary to prevent any untoward incident or to ensure that no suspicious individuals were allowed to enter the premises. In fact, it is even doubtful that there was a security guard, since it is quite impossible that he would not have noticed that the robbers were armed with caliber .45 pistols each, which were allegedly poked at the employees. 33 Significantly, the alleged security guard was not presented at all to corroborate petitioner Sicam's claim; not one of petitioners' employees who were present during the robbery incident testified in court. Furthermore, petitioner Sicam's admission that the vault was open at the time of robbery is clearly a proof of petitioners' failure to observe the care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstances justly demanded. Petitioner Sicam testified that once the pawnshop was open, the combination was already off. Considering petitioner Sicam's testimony that the robbery took place on a Saturday afternoon and the area in BF Homes Paraaque at that time was quiet, there was more reason for petitioners to have exercised reasonable foresight and diligence in protecting the pawned jewelries. Instead of taking the precaution to protect them, they let open the vault, providing no difficulty for the robbers to cart away the pawned articles. We, however, do not agree with the CA when it found petitioners negligent for not taking steps to insure themselves against l oss of the pawned jewelries. Under Section 17 of Central Bank Circular No. 374, Rules and Regulations for Pawnshops, which took effect on July 13, 1973, and which was issued pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 114, Pawnshop Regulation Act, it is provided that pawns pledged must be insured, to wit: Sec. 17. Insurance of Office Building and Pawns- The place of business of a pawnshop and the pawns pledged to it must be insured against fire and against burglary as well as for the latter(sic), by an insurance company accredited by the Insurance Commissioner. However, this Section was subsequently amended by CB Circular No. 764 which took effect on October 1, 1980, to wit: Sec. 17 Insurance of Office Building and Pawns The office building/premises and pawns of a pawnshop must be insured against fire. (emphasis supplied). where the requirement that insurance against burglary was deleted. Obviously, the Central Bank considered it not feasible to require insurance of pawned articles against burglary. The robbery in the pawnshop happened in 1987, and considering the above-quoted amendment, there is no statutory duty imposed on petitioners to insure the pawned jewelry in which case it was error for the CA to consider it as a factor in concluding that petitioners were negligent. Nevertheless, the preponderance of evidence shows that petitioners failed to exercise the diligence required of them under the Civil Code. The diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is placed and the importance of the act which he is to perform. 34 Thus, the cases ofAustria v. Court of Appeals,35 Hernandez v. Chairman, Commission on Audit36 and Cruz v. Gangan37 cited by petitioners in their pleadings, where the victims of robbery were exonerated from liability, find no application to the present case. In Austria, Maria Abad received from Guillermo Austria a pendant with diamonds to be sold on commission basis, but which Abad failed to subsequently return because of a robbery committed upon her in 1961. The incident became the subject of a criminal case filed against several persons. Austria filed an action against Abad and her husband (Abads) for recovery of the pendant or its value, but the Abads set up the defense that the robbery extinguished their obligation. The RTC ruled in favor of Austria, as the Abads failed to prove robbery; or, if committed, that Maria Abad was guilty of negligence. The CA, however, reversed the RTC decision holding that the fact of robbery was duly established and declared the Abads not responsible for the loss of the jewelry on account of a fortuitous event. We held that for the Abads to be relieved from the civil liability of returning the pendant under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code, it would only be suf ficient that the unforeseen event, the robbery, took place without any concurrent fault on the debtors part, and this can be done by preponderance of evidence; that to be free from liability for reason of fortuitous event, the debtor must, in addition to the casus itself, be free of any concurrent or contributory fault or negligence. 38 We found in Austria that under the circumstances prevailing at the time the Decision was promulgated in 1971, the City of Manila and its suburbs had a high incidence of crimes against persons and property that rendered travel after nightfall a matter to be sedulously avoided without suitable precaution and protection; that the conduct of Maria Abad in returning alone to her house in the evening carrying jewelry of

considerable value would have been negligence per se and would not exempt her from responsibility in the case of robbery. However we did not hold Abad liable for negligence since, the robbery happened ten years previously; i.e., 1961, when criminality had not reached the level of incidence obtaining in 1971. In contrast, the robbery in this case took place in 1987 when robbery was already prevalent and petitioners in fact had alrea dy foreseen it as they wanted to deposit the pawn with a nearby bank for safekeeping. Moreover, unlike in Austria, where no negligence was committed, we found petitioners negligent in securing their pawnshop as earlier discussed. In Hernandez, Teodoro Hernandez was the OIC and special disbursing officer of the Ternate Beach Project of the Philippine Tourism in Cavite. In the morning of July 1, 1983, a Friday, he went to Manila to encash two checks covering the wages of the employees and the operating expenses of the project. However for some reason, the processing of the check was delayed and was completed at about 3 p.m. Nevertheless, he decided to encash the check because the project employees would be waiting for their pay the following day; other wise, the workers would have to wait until July 5, the earliest time, when the main office would open. At that time, he had two choices: (1) return to Ternate, Cavite that same afternoon and arrive early evening; or (2) take the money with him to his house in Marilao, Bulacan, spend the night there, and leave for Ternate the following day. He chose the second option, thinking it was the safer one. Thus, a little past 3 p.m., he took a passenger jeep bound for Bulacan. While the jeep was on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, the jeep was held up and the money kept by Hernandez was taken, and the robbers jumped out of the jeep and ran. Hernandez chased the robbers and caught up with one robber who was subsequently charged with robbery and pleaded guilty. The other robber who held the stolen money escaped. The Commission on Audit found Hernandez negligent because he had not brought the cash proceeds of the checks to his office in Ternate, Cavite for safekeeping, which is the normal procedure in the handling of funds. We held that Hernandez was not negligent in d eciding to encash the check and bringing it home to Marilao, Bulacan instead of Ternate, Cavite due to the lateness of the hour for the following reasons: (1) he was moved by unselfish motive for his co-employees to collect their wages and salaries the following day, a Saturday, a non-working, because to encash the check on July 5, the next working day after July 1, would have caused discomfort to laborers who were dependent on their wages for sustenance; and (2) that choosing Marilao as a safer destination, being nearer, and in view of the comparative hazards in the trips to the two places, said decision seemed logical at that time. We further held that the fact that two robbers attacked him in broad daylight in the jeep while it was on a busy highway and in the presence of other passengers could not be said to be a result of his imprudence and negligence. Unlike in Hernandez where the robbery happened in a public utility, the robbery in this case took place in the pawnshop which is under the control of petitioners. Petitioners had the means to screen the persons who were allowed entrance to the premises and to protect itself from unlawful intrusion. Petitioners had failed to exercise precautionary measures in ensuring that the robbers were prevented from entering the pawnshop and for keeping the vault open for the day, which paved the way for the robbers to easily cart away the pawned articles. In Cruz, Dr. Filonila O. Cruz, Camanava District Director of Technological Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), boarded the Light Rail Transit (LRT) from Sen. Puyat Avenue to Monumento when her handbag was slashed and the contents were stolen by an unidentified person. Among those stolen were her wallet and the government-issued cellular phone. She then reported the incident to the police authorities; however, the thief was not located, and the cellphone was not recovered. She also reported the loss to the Regional Director of TESDA, and she requested that she be freed from accountability for the cellphone. The Resident Auditor denied her request on the ground that she lacked the diligence required in the custody of government property and was ordered to pay the purchase value in the total amount of P4,238.00. The COA found no sufficient justification to grant the request for relief from accountability. We reversed the ruling and found that riding the LRT cannot per se be denounced as a negligent act more so because Cruzs mode of transit was influenced by time and money considerations; that she boarded the LRT to be able to arrive in Caloocan in time for her 3 pm m eeting; that any prudent and rational person under similar circumstance can reasonably be expected to do the same; that possession of a cellphone should not hinder one from boarding the LRT coach as Cruz did considering that whether she rode a jeep or bus, the risk of theft would have also been present; that because of her relatively low position and pay, she was not expected to have her own vehicle or to ride a taxicab; she did not have a government assigned vehicle; that placing the cellphone in a bag away from covetous eyes and holding on to that bag as she did is ordinarily sufficient care of a cellphone while traveling on board the LRT; that the records did not s how any specific act of negligence on her part and negligence can never be presumed. Unlike in the Cruz case, the robbery in this case happened in petitioners' pawnshop and they were negligent in not exercising the precautions justly demanded of a pawnshop. WHEREFORE, except for the insurance aspect, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 31, 2003 and its Resolution dated August 8, 2003, are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 158911

March 4, 2008

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. MATILDE MACABAGDAL RAMOY, BIENVENIDO RAMOY, ROMANA RAMOY-RAMOS, ROSEMARIE RAMOY, OFELIA DURIAN and CYRENE PANADO, Respondents. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Decision 1of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated December 16, 2002, ordering petitioner Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) to pay Leoncio Ramoy 2 moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, and the CA Resolution3 dated July 1, 2003, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, be reversed and set aside. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 81, accurately summarized the facts as culled from the records, thus: The evidence on record has established that in the year 1987 the National Power Corporation (NPC) filed with the MTC Quezon City a case for ejectment against several persons allegedly illegally occupying its properties in Baesa, Quezon City. Among the defendants in the ejectment case was Leoncio Ramoy, one of the plaintiffs in the case at bar. On April 28, 1989 after the defendants failed to file an answer in spite of summons duly served, the MTC Branch 36, Quezon City rendered judgment for the plaintiff [MERALCO] and "ordering the defendants to demolish or remove the building and structures they built on the land of the plaintiff and to vacate the premises." In the case of Leoncio Ramoy, the Court found that he was occupying a portion of Lot No. 72-B-2-B with the exact location of his apartments indicated and encircled in the location map as No. 7. A copy of the decision was furnished Leoncio Ramoy (Exhibits 2, 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, pp. 128-131, Record; TSN, July 2, 1993, p. 5). On June 20, 1990 NPC wrote Meralco requesting for the "immediate disconnection of electric power supply to all residential an d commercial establishments beneath the NPC transmission lines along Baesa, Quezon City (Exh. 7, p. 143, Record). Attached to the letter was a list of establishments affected which included plaintiffs Leoncio and Matilde Ramoy (Exh. 9), as well as a copy of the court decision (Exh. 2). After deliberating on NPC's letter, Meralco decided to comply with NPC's request (Exhibits 6, 6-A, 6-A-1, 6-B) and thereupon issued notices of disconnection to all establishments affected including plaintiffs Leoncio Ramoy (Exhs. 3, 3-A to 3-C), Matilde Ramoy/Matilde Macabagdal (Exhibits 3-D to 3-E), Rosemarie Ramoy (Exh. 3-F), Ofelia Durian (Exh. 3-G), Jose Valiza (Exh. 3-H) and Cyrene S. Panado (Exh. 3-I). In a letter dated August 17, 1990 Meralco requested NPC for a joint survey to determine all the establishments which are considered under NPC property in view of the fact that "the houses in the area are very close to each other" (Exh. 12). Shortly thereafter, a joint survey was conducted and the NPC personnel pointed out the electric meters to be disconnected (Exh. 13; TSN, October 8, 1993, p. 7; TSN, July 1994, p. 8). In due time, the electric service connection of the plaintiffs [herein respondents] was disconnected (Exhibits D to G, with s ubmarkings, pp. 86-87, Record). Plaintiff Leoncio Ramoy testified that he and his wife are the registered owners of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 326346, a portion of which was occupied by plaintiffs Rosemarie Ramoy, Ofelia Durian, Jose Valiza and Cyrene S. Panado as lessees. When the Meralc o employees were disconnecting plaintiffs' power connection, plaintiff Leoncio Ramoy objected by informing the Meralco foreman that his property was outside the NPC property and pointing out the monuments showing the boundaries of his property. However, he was threatened and told not to interfere by the armed men who accompanied the Meralco employees. After the electric power in Ramoy's apartment was cut off, the plaintiffs-lessees left the premises. During the ocular inspection ordered by the Court and attended by the parties, it was found out that the residence of plaintiffs-spouses Leoncio and Matilde Ramoy was indeed outside the NPC property. This was confirmed by defendant's witness R.P. Monsale III on crossexamination (TSN, October 13, 1993, pp. 10 and 11). Monsale also admitted that he did not inform his supervisor about this fact nor did he recommend re-connection of plaintiffs' power supply (Ibid., p. 14). The record also shows that at the request of NPC, defendant Meralco re-connected the electric service of four customers previously disconnected none of whom was any of the plaintiffs (Exh. 14). 4 The RTC decided in favor of MERALCO by dismissing herein respondents' claim for moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees. However, the RTC ordered MERALCO to restore the electric power supply of respondents. Respondents then appealed to the CA. In its Decision dated December 16, 2002, the CA faulted MERALCO for not requiring from National Power Corporation (NPC) a writ of execution or demolition and in not coordinating with the court sheriff or other proper officer before complying with the NPC's request. Thus, the CA held MERALCO liable for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. MERALCO's motion for reconsideration of the Decision was denied per Resolution dated July 1, 2003. Hence, herein petition for review on certiorari on the following grounds: I THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FOUND MERALCO NEGLIGENT WHEN IT DISCONNECTED THE SUBJECT ELECTRIC SERVICE OF RESPONDENTS. II THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT AWARDED MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AGAINST MERALCO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE LATTER ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN THE DISCONNECTION OF THE ELECTRIC SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENTS. 5 The petition is partly meritorious. MERALCO admits6 that respondents are its customers under a Service Contract whereby it is obliged to supply respondents with electricity. Nevertheless, upon request of the NPC, MERALCO disconnected its power supply to respondents on the ground that they were illegally occupying the NPC's right of way. Under the Service Contract, "[a] customer of electric service must show his right or proper interest over the property in order that he will be provided with and assured a continuous electric service."7 MERALCO argues that since

there is a Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City ruling that herein respondents were among the illegal occupants of the NPC's right of way, MERALCO was justified in cutting off service to respondents. Clearly, respondents' cause of action against MERALCO is anchored on culpa contractual or breach of contract for the latter's discontinuance of its service to respondents under Article 1170 of the Civil Code which provides: Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. In Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. Verchez,8 the Court expounded on the nature of culpa contractual, thus: "In culpa contractual x x x the mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. The law, recognizing the obligatory force of contracts, will not permit a party to be set free from liability for any kind of misperformance of the contractual undertaking or a contravention of the tenor thereof. A breach upon the contract confers upon the injured party a valid cause for recovering that which may have been lost or suffered. The remedy serves to preserve the interests of the promissee that may include his "expectation interest," which is his interest in having the benefit of his bargain by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract been performed, or his "reliance interest," which is his interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract not been made; or his "restitution interest," which is his interest in having restored to him any benefit that he has conferred on the other party. Indeed, agreements can accomplish little, either for their makers or for society, unless they are made the basis for action. The effect of every infraction is to create a new duty, that is, to make recompense to the one who has been injured by the failure of another to observe his contractual obligation unless he can show extenuating circumstances, like proof of his exercise of due diligence x x x or of the attendance of fortuitous event, to excuse him from his ensuing liability.9 (Emphasis supplied) Article 1173 also provides that the fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is re quired by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. The Court emphasized in Ridjo Tape & Chemical Corporation v. Court of Appeals 10 that "as a public utility, MERALCO has the obligation to discharge its functions with utmost care and diligence."11 The Court agrees with the CA that under the factual milieu of the present case, MERALCO failed to exercise the utmost degree of care and diligence required of it. To repeat, it was not enough for MERALCO to merely rely on the Decision of the MTC without ascertaining whether it had become final and executory. Verily, only upon finality of said Decision can it be said with conclusiveness that respondents have no right or proper interest over the subject property, thus, are not entitled to the services of MERALCO. Although MERALCO insists that the MTC Decision is final and executory, it never showed any documentary evidence to support this allegation. Moreover, if it were true that the decision was final and executory, the most prudent thing for MERALCO to have done was to coordinate with the proper court officials in determining which structures are covered by said court order. Likewise, there is no evidence on record to show that this was done by MERALCO. The utmost care and diligence required of MERALCO necessitates such great degree of prudence on its part, and failure to exercise the diligence required means that MERALCO was at fault and negligent in the performance of its obligation. In Ridjo Tape,12 the Court explained: [B]eing a public utility vested with vital public interest, MERALCO is impressed with certain obligations towards its customers and any omission on its part to perform such duties would be prejudicial to its interest. For in the final analysis, the bottom line is that those who do not exercise such prudence in the discharge of their duties shall be made to bear the consequences of such oversight. 13 This being so, MERALCO is liable for damages under Article 1170 of the Civil Code. The next question is: Are respondents entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees? Article 2220 of the Civil Code provides: Article 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. In the present case, MERALCO wilfully caused injury to Leoncio Ramoy by withholding from him and his tenants the supply of electricity to which they were entitled under the Service Contract. This is contrary to public policy because, as discussed above, MERALCO, being a vital public utility, is expected to exercise utmost care and diligence in the performance of its obligation. It was incumbent upon MERALCO to do everything within its power to ensure that the improvements built by respondents are within the NPCs right of way before disconnecting their power supply. The Court emphasized in Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Quijano14 that: Electricity is a basic necessity the generation and distribution of which is imbued with public interest, and its provider is a public utility subject to strict regulation by the State in the exercise of police power. Failure to comply with these regulations will give rise to the presumption of bad faith or abuse of right.15(Emphasis supplied) Thus, by analogy, MERALCO's failure to exercise utmost care and diligence in the performance of its obligation to Leoncio Ramoy, its customer, is tantamount to bad faith. Leoncio Ramoy testified that he suffered wounded feelings because of MERALCO's actions.16 Furthermore, due to the lack of power supply, the lessees of his four apartments on subject lot left the premises. 17 Clearly, therefore, Leoncio Ramoy is entitled to moral damages in the amount awarded by the CA.

Leoncio Ramoy, the lone witness for respondents, was the only one who testified regarding the effects on him of MERALCO's ele ctric service disconnection. His co-respondents Matilde Ramoy, Rosemarie Ramoy, Ofelia Durian and Cyrene Panado did not present any evidence of damages they suffered. It is a hornbook principle that damages may be awarded only if proven. In Mahinay v. Velasquez, Jr.,18 the Court held thus: In order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. While respondent alleged in his complaint that he suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and moral shock, he failed to prove them during the trial. Indeed, respondent should have taken the witness stand and should have testified on the mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and other emotional and mental suffering he purportedly suffered to sustain his claim for moral damages. Mere allegations do not suffice; they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof. No other person could have proven such damages except the respondent himself as they were extremely personal to him. In Keirulf vs. Court of Appeals, we held: "While no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, it is nevertheless essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to defendants acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. In Francisco vs. GSIS, the Court held that there must be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental suffering. Thus, if the plaintiff fails to take the witness stand and testify as to his/her social humiliation, wounded feelings and anxiety, moral damages cannot be awarded. In Cocoland Development Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court held that "additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, these being, x x x social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc. that resulted therefrom." x x x The award of moral damages must be anchored to a clear showing that respondent actually experienced mental anguish, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, wounded feelings or similar injury. There was no better witness to this experience than respondent himself. Since respondent failed to testify on the witness stand, the trial court did not have any factual basis to award moral damages to him.19 (Emphasis supplied) Thus, only respondent Leoncio Ramoy, who testified as to his wounded feelings, may be awarded moral damages. 20 With regard to exemplary damages, Article 2232 of the Civil Code provides that in contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant, in this case MERALCO, acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner, while Article 2233 of the same Code provides that such damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right and the adjudication of the same is within the discretion of the court.1avvphi1 The Court finds that MERALCO fell short of exercising the due diligence required, but its actions cannot be considered wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent. Records show that MERALCO did take some measures, i.e., coordinating with NPC officials and conducting a joint survey of the subject area, to verify which electric meters should be disconnected although these measures are not sufficient, considering the degree of diligence required of it. Thus, in this case, exemplary damages should not be awarded. Since the Court does not deem it proper to award exemplary damages in this case, then the CA's award for attorney's fees should likewise be deleted, as Article 2208 of the Civil Code states that in the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees cannot be recovered except in cases provided for in said Article, to wit: Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded; (2) When the defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff; (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff; (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable claim; (6) In actions for legal support; (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers; (8) In actions for indemnity under workmens compensation and employers liability laws; (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime; (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded; (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorneys fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. In all cases, the attorneys fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. None of the grounds for recovery of attorney's fees are present. WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED withMODIFICATION. The award for exemplary damages and attorney's fees is DELETED.

SOLAR HARVEST, INC. vs. DAVAO CORRUGATED CARTON CORPORATION, G.R. No. 176868; July 26, 2010 NACHURA, J.:

Petitioner seeks a review of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1] dated September 21, 2006 and Resolution[2] dated February 23, 2007, which denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. The assailed Decision denied petitioners claim for reimbursement for the amount it paid to respondent for the manufacture of corrugated carton boxes.

The case arose from the following antecedents: In the first quarter of 1998, petitioner, Solar Harvest, Inc., entered into an agreement with respondent, Davao Corrugated Carton Corporation, for the purchase of corrugated carton boxes, specifically designed for petitioners business of exporting fresh bananas, at US$1.10 each. The agreement was not reduced into writing. To get the production underway, petitioner deposited, on March 31, 1998, US$40,150.00 in respondents US Dollar Savings Account with Westmont Bank, as full payment for the ordered boxes. Despite such payment, petitioner did not receive any boxes from respondent. On January 3, 2001, petitioner wrote a demand letter for reimbursement of the amount paid.[3] On February 19, 2001, respondent replied that the boxes had been completed as early as April 3, 1998 and that petitioner failed to pick them up from the formers warehouse 30 days from completion, as agreed upon. Respondent mentioned that petitioner even placed an additional order of 24,000 boxes, out of which, 14,000 had been manufactured without any advanced payment from petitioner. Respondent then demanded petitioner to remove the boxes from the factory and to pay the balance of US$15,400.00 for the additional boxes and P132,000.00 as storage fee. On August 17, 2001, petitioner filed a Complaint for sum of money and damages against respondent. The Complaint averred that the parties agreed that the boxes will be delivered within 30 days from payment but respondent failed to manufacture and deliver the boxes within such time. It further alleged 6. That repeated follow-up was made by the plaintiff for the immediate production of the ordered boxes, but every time, defendant [would] only show samples of boxes and ma[k]e repeated promises to deliver the said ordered boxes. 7. That because of the failure of the defendant to deliver the ordered boxes, plaintiff ha[d] to cancel the same and demand payment and/or refund from the defendant but the latter refused to pay and/or refund the US$40,150.00 payment made by the former for the ordered boxes.[4] In its Answer with Counterclaim,[5] respondent insisted that, as early as April 3, 1998, it had already completed production of the 36,500 boxes, contrary to petitioners allegation. According to respondent, petitioner, in fact, made an additional order of 24,000 boxes, out of which, 14,000 had been completed without waiting for petitioners payment. Respondent stated that petitioner was to pick up the boxes at the factory as agreed upon, but petitioner failed to do so. Respondent averred that, on October 8, 1998, petitioners representative, Bobby Que (Que), went to the factory and saw that the boxes were ready for pick up. On February 20, 1999, Que visited the fac tory again and supposedly advised respondent to sell the boxes as rejects to recoup the cost of the unpaid 14,000 boxes, because petitioners transaction to ship bananas to China did not materialize. Respondent claimed that the boxes were occupying warehouse space and that petitioner should be made to pay storage fee at P60.00 per square meter for every month from April 1998. As counterclaim, respondent prayed that judgment be rendered ordering petitioner to pay $15,400.00, plus interest, moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, and costs of the suit. In reply, petitioner denied that it made a second order of 24,000 boxes and that respondent already completed the initial order of 36,500 boxes and 14,000 boxes out of the second order. It maintained that respondent only manufactured a sample of the ordered boxes and that respondent could not have produced 14,000 boxes without the required pre-payments.[6] During trial, petitioner presented Que as its sole witness. Que testified that he ordered the boxes from respondent and deposited the money in respondents account.[7] He specifically stated that, when he visited respondents factory, he saw that the boxes had no print of petitioners logo.[8] A few months later, he followed-up the order and was told that the company had full production, and thus, was promised that production of the order would be rushed. He told respondent that it should indeed rush production because the need for the boxes was urgent. Thereafter, he asked his partner, Alfred Ong, to cancel the order because it was already late for them to meet their commitment to ship the bananas to China.[9] On cross-examination, Que further testified that China Zero Food, the Chinese company that ordered the bananas, was sending a ship to Davao to get the bananas, but since there were no cartons, the ship could not proceed. He said that, at that time, bananas from Tagum Agricultural Development Corporation (TADECO) were already there. He denied that petitioner made an additional order of 24,000 boxes. He explained that it took three years to refer the matter to counsel because respondent promised to pay.[10] For respondent, Bienvenido Estanislao (Estanislao) testified that he met Que in Davao in October 1998 to inspect the boxes and that the latter got samples of them. In February 2000, they inspected the boxes again and Que got more samples. Estanislao said that petitioner did not pick up the boxes because the ship did not arrive.[11] Jaime Tan (Tan), president of respondent, also tes tified that his company finished production of the 36,500 boxes on April 3, 1998 and that petitioner made a second order of 24,000 boxes. He said that the agreement was for respondent to produce the boxes and for petitioner to pick them up from the warehouse.[12] He also said that the reason why petitioner did not pick up the boxes was that the ship that was to carry the bananas did not arrive.[13] According to him, during the last visit of Que and Estanislao, he asked them to withdraw the boxes immediately because they were occupying a big space in his plant, but they, instead, told him to sell the cartons as rejects. He was able to sell 5,000 boxes at P20.00 each for a total of P100,000.00. They then told him to apply the said amount to the unpaid balance. In its March 2, 2004 Decision, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that respondent did not commit any breach of faith that would justify rescission of the contract and the consequent reimbursement of the amount paid by petitioner. The RTC said that respondent was able to produce the ordered boxes but petitioner failed to obtain possession thereof because its ship did not arrive. It thus di smissed the complaint and respondents counterclaims, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff and, accordingly, plaintiffs complaint is hereby ordered DISMISSED without pronouncement as to cost. Defendants counterclaims are similarly dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.[14] Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the CA. On September 21, 2006, the CA denied the appeal for lack of merit.[15] The appellate court held that petitioner failed to discharge its burden of proving what it claimed to be the parties agreement with respect to the delivery of the boxes. According to the CA, it was unthinkable that, over a period of more than two years, petitioner did not even demand for the delivery of the boxes. The CA added that even assuming that the agreement was for respondent to deliver the boxes, respondent would not be liable for breach of contract as petitioner had not yet demanded from it the delivery of the boxes.[16] Petitioner moved for reconsideration,[17] but the motion was denied by the CA in its Resolution of February 23, 2007.[18] In this petition, petitioner insists that respondent did not completely manufacture the boxes and that it was respondent whic h was obliged to deliver the boxes to TADECO. We find no reversible error in the assailed Decision that would justify the grant of this petition. Petitioners claim for reimbursement is actually one for rescission (or resolution) of contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, which reads: Art. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible. The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period. This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with Articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law.

The right to rescind a contract arises once the other party defaults in the performance of his obligation. In determining when default occurs, Art. 1191 should be taken in conjunction with Art. 1169 of the same law, which provides: Art. 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in order that delay may exist: (1) When the obligation or the law expressly so declares; or

(2) When from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it appears that the designation of the time when the thing is to be delivered or the service is to be rendered was a controlling motive for the establishment of the contract; or (3) When demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his power to perform.

In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins. In reciprocal obligations, as in a contract of sale, the general rule is that the fulfillment of the parties respective obli gations should be simultaneous. Hence, no demand is generally necessary because, once a party fulfills his obligation and the other party does not fulfill his, the latter automatically incurs in delay. But when different dates for performance of the obligations are fixed, the default for each obligation must be determined by the rules given in the first paragraph of the present article,[19] that is, the other party would incur in delay only from the moment the other party demands fulfillment of the formers obligation. Thus, even in reciprocal obligations, if the period for the fulfillment of the obligation is fixed, demand upon the obligee is still necessary before the obligor can be considered in default and before a cause of action for rescission will accrue. Evident from the records and even from the allegations in the complaint was the lack of demand by petitioner upon respondent to fulfill its obligation to manufacture and deliver the boxes. The Complaint only alleged that petitioner made a follow-up upon respondent, which, however, would not qualify as a demand for the fulfillment of the obligation. Petitioners witness also testified that they made a follow-up of the boxes, but not a demand. Note is taken of the fact that, with respect to their claim for reimbursement, the Complaint alleged and the witness testified that a demand letter was sent to respondent. Without a previous demand for the fulfillment of the obligation, petitioner would not have a cause of action for rescission against respondent as the latter would not yet be considered in breach of its contractual obligation. Even assuming that a demand had been previously made before filing the present case, petitioners claim for reimbursement would still fail, as the circumstances would show that respondent was not guilty of breach of contract. The existence of a breach of contract is a factual matter not usually reviewed in a petition for review under Rule 45.[20] T he Court, in petitions for review, limits its inquiry only to questions of law. After all, it is not a trier of facts, and findings of fact made by the trial court, especially when reiterated by the CA, must be given great respect if not considered as final.[21] In dealing with this petit ion, we will not veer away from this doctrine and will thus sustain the factual findings of the CA, which we find to be adequately supported by the evidence on record. As correctly observed by the CA, aside from the pictures of the finished boxes and the production report thereof, there is am ple showing that the boxes had already been manufactured by respondent. There is the testimony of Estanislao who accompanied Que to the factory, attesting that, during their first visit to the company, they saw the pile of petitioners boxes and Que took samples thereof. Que, petitioners witness, himself confirmed this incident. He testified that Tan pointed the boxes to him and that he got a sample and saw that it was blank. Ques absolute assertion that the boxes were not manufactured is, therefore, implausible and suspicious.

In fact, we note that respondents counsel manifested in court, during trial, that his client was willing to shoulder expense s for a representative of the court to visit the plant and see the boxes.[22] Had it been true that the boxes were not yet completed, respondent would not have been so bold as to challenge the court to conduct an ocular inspection of their warehouse. Even in its Comment to this petition, respondent prays that petitioner be ordered to remove the boxes from its factory site,[23] which could only mean that the boxes are, up to the present, still in respondents premises. We also believe that the agreement between the parties was for petitioner to pick up the boxes from respondents warehouse, contrary to petitioners allegation. Thus, it was due to petitioners fault that the boxes were not delivered to TADECO. Petitioner had the burden to prove that the agreement was, in fact, for respondent to deliver the boxes within 30 days from payment, as alleged in the Complaint. Its sole witness, Que, was not even competent to testify on the terms of the agreement and, ther efore, we cannot give much credence to his testimony. It appeared from the testimony of Que that he did not personally place the order with Tan, thus: Surely, without such authority, TADECO would not have allowed respondent to deposit the boxes within its premises. In sum, the Court finds that petitioner failed to establish a cause of action for rescission, the evidence having shown that respondent did not commit any breach of its contractual obligation. As previously stated, the subject boxes are still within respondent s premises. To put a rest to this dispute, we therefore relieve respondent from the burden of having to keep the boxes within its premises and, consequently, give it the right to dispose of them, after petitioner is given a period of time within which to remove them from the premises. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated September 21, 2006 and Resolution dated February 23, 2007 are AFFIRMED. In addition, petitioner is given a period of 30 days from notice within which to cause the removal of the 36,500 boxes from respondents warehouse. After the lapse of said period and petitioner fails to effect such removal, respondent shall have the right to dispose of the boxes in any manner it may deem fit. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 162467

May 8, 2009

MINDANAO TERMINAL AND BROKERAGE SERVICE, INC. Petitioner, vs. PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK/MCGEE & CO., INC., Respondent. TINGA, J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of the 29 October 2003 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals and the 26 February 2004 Resolution of the same court denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. The facts of the case are not disputed. Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (Del Monte) contracted petitioner Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. (Mindanao Terminal), a stevedoring company, to load and stow a shipment of 146,288 cartons of fresh green Philippine bananas and 15,202 cartons of fresh pineapples belonging to Del Monte Fresh Produce International, Inc. (Del Monte Produce) into the cargo hold of the vessel M/V Mistrau. The vessel was docked at the port of Davao City and the goods were to be transported by it to the port of Inchon, Korea in favor of consignee Taegu Industries, Inc. Del Monte Produce insured the shipment under an "open cargo policy" with private respondent Phoenix Assurance Company of New York (Phoenix), a non-life insurance company, and private 4 respondent McGee & Co. Inc. (McGee), the underwriting manager/agent of Phoenix. Mindanao Terminal loaded and stowed the cargoes aboard the M/V Mistrau. The vessel set sail from the port of Davao City and arrived at the port of Inchon, Korea. It was then discovered upon discharge that some of the cargo was in bad condition. The Marine Cargo Damage Surveyor of Incok Loss and Average Adjuster of Korea, through its representative Byeong Yong Ahn (Byeong), surveyed the extent of the damage of the shipment. In a survey report, it was stated that 16,069 cartons of the banana 5 shipment and 2,185 cartons of the pineapple shipment were so damaged that they no longer had commercial value. Del Monte Produce filed a claim under the open cargo policy for the damages to its shipment. McGees Marine Claims Insurance Adjuster evaluated the claim and recommended that payment in the amount of $210,266.43 be made. A check for the 6 recommended amount was sent to Del Monte Produce; the latter then issued a subrogation receipt to Phoenix and McGee. Phoenix and McGee instituted an action for damages against Mindanao Terminal in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, 8 Branch 12. After trial, the RTC, in a decision dated 20 October 1999, held that the only participation of Mindanao Terminal was to load the cargoes on board the M/V Mistrau under the direction and supervision of the ships officers, who would not have accepted the cargoes on board the vessel and signed the foremans report unless they were properly arranged and tightly secured to withstand voyage across the open seas. Accordingly, Mindanao Terminal cannot be held liable for whatever happened to the cargoes after it had loaded and stowed them. Moreover, citing the survey report, it was found by the RTC that the cargoes were damaged on account of a typhoon which M/V Mistrau had encountered during the voyage. It was further held that Phoenix and McGee had no cause of action against Mindanao Terminal because the latter, whose services were contracted by Del Monte, a distinct corporation from Del Monte Produce, had no contract with the assured Del Monte Produce. The RTC dismissed the complaint and awarded the counterclaim of Mindanao Terminal in the amount of P83,945.80 as actual damages and P100,000.00 9 as attorneys fees. The actual damages were awarded as reimbursement for the expenses incurred by Mindanao Terminals lawyer in attending the hearings in the case wherein he had to travel all the way from Metro Manila to Davao City. Phoenix and McGee appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC in its 29 October 2003 decision. The same court ordered Mindanao Terminal to pay Phoenix and McGee "the total amount of 11 $210,265.45 plus legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid and attorneys fees of 20% of the claim." It sustained Phoenixs and McGees argument that the damage in the cargoes was the result of improper stowage by Mindanao Terminal. It imposed on Mindanao Terminal, as the stevedore of the cargo, the duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in loading and stowing the cargoes. It further held that even with the absence of a contractual relationship between Mindanao Terminal and Del Monte 12 Produce, the cause of action of Phoenix and McGee could be based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Mindanao Terminal filed a motion for reconsideration, Hence, the present petition for review.
13 10 7 1 2

which the Court of Appeals denied in its 26 February 2004

14

resolution.

Mindanao Terminal raises two issues in the case at bar, namely: whether it was careless and negligent in the loading and stowage of the cargoes onboard M/V Mistrau making it liable for damages; and, whether Phoenix and McGee has a cause of action against Mindanao Terminal under Article 2176 of the Civil Code on quasi-delict. To resolve the petition, three questions have to be answered: first, whether Phoenix and McGee have a cause of action against Mindanao Terminal; second, whether Mindanao Terminal, as a stevedoring company, is under obligation to observe the same extraordinary degree of diligence in the conduct of its 15 16 business as required by law for common carriers and warehousemen; and third, whether Mindanao Terminal observed the degree of diligence required by law of a stevedoring company. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the complaint filed by Phoenix and McGee against Mindanao Terminal, from which the present case has arisen, states a cause of action. The present action is based on quasi-delict, arising from the negligent and careless loading and stowing of the cargoes belonging to Del Monte Produce. Even assuming that both Phoenix and McGee have only been subrogated in the rights of Del Monte Produce, who is not a party to the contract of service between Mindanao Terminal and Del Monte, still the insurance carriers may have a cause of action in light of the Courts consistent ruling that the act that 17 breaks the contract may be also a tort. In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches 18 the contract . In the present case, Phoenix and McGee are not suing for damages for injuries arising from the breach of the contract of service but from the alleged negligent manner by which Mindanao Terminal handled the cargoes belonging to Del Monte Produce. Despite the absence of contractual relationship between Del Monte Produce and Mindanao Terminal, the 19 allegation of negligence on the part of the defendant should be sufficient to establish a cause of action arising from quasi-delict.

The resolution of the two remaining issues is determinative of the ultimate result of this case. Article 1173 of the Civil Code is very clear that if the law or contract does not state the degree of diligence which is to be observed in the performance of an obligation then that which is expected of a good father of a family or ordinary diligence shall be required. Mindanao Terminal, a stevedoring company which was charged with the loading and stowing the cargoes of Del Monte Produce aboard M/V Mistrau, had acted merely as a labor provider in the case at bar. There is no specific provision of law that imposes a higher degree of diligence than ordinary diligence for a stevedoring company or one who is charged only with the loading and stowing of cargoes. It was neither alleged nor proven by Phoenix and McGee that Mindanao Terminal was bound by contractual stipulation to observe a higher degree of diligence than that required of a good father of a family. We therefore conclude that following Article 1173, Mindanao Terminal was required to observe ordinary diligence only in loading and stowing the cargoes of Del Monte Produce aboard M/V Mistrau. imposing a higher degree of diligence, on Mindanao Terminal in loading and stowing the cargoes. The case ofSumma Insurance Corporation v. CA, which involved the issue of whether an arrastre operator is legally liable for the loss of a shipment in its custody and the extent of its liability, is inapplicable to the factual circumstances of the case at bar. Therein, a vessel owned by the National Galleon Shipping Corporation (NGSC) arrived at Pier 3, South Harbor, Manila, carrying a shipment consigned to the order of Caterpillar Far East Ltd. with Semirara Coal Corporation (Semirara) as "notify party." The shipment, including a bundle of PC 8 U blades, was discharged from the vessel to the custody of the private respondent, the exclusive arrastre operator at the South Harbor. Accordingly, three good-order cargo receipts were issued by NGSC, duly signed by the ship's checker and a representative of private respondent. When Semirara inspected the shipment at house, it discovered that the bundle of PC8U blades was missing. From those facts, the Court observed: x x x The relationship therefore between the consignee and the arrastre operator must be examined. This relationship is much akin to that existing between the consignee or owner of shipped goods and the common carrier, or that between a depositor and a [22 ] warehouseman . In the performance of its obligations, an arrastre operator should observe the same degree of diligence as that required of a common carrier and a warehouseman as enunciated under Article 1733 of the Civil Code and Section 3(b) of the Warehouse Receipts Law, respectively. Being the custodian of the goods discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operator's duty is to take good care of the goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their possession. 23 (Emphasis supplied) There is a distinction between an arrastre and a stevedore. Arrastre, a Spanish word which refers to hauling of cargo, comprehends the handling of cargo on the wharf or between the establishment of the consignee or shipper and the ship's tackle. The responsibility of the arrastre operator lasts until the delivery of the cargo to the consignee. The service is usually performed by longshoremen. On the other hand, stevedoring refers to the handling of the cargo in the holds of the vessel or between the ship's tackle and the holds of the vessel. The responsibility of the stevedore ends upon the loading and stowing of the cargo in the vessel.1avvphi1 It is not disputed that Mindanao Terminal was performing purely stevedoring function while the private respondent in the Summa case was performing arrastre function. In the present case, Mindanao Terminal, as a stevedore, was only charged with the loading and stowing of the cargoes from the pier to the ships cargo hold; it was never the custodian of the shipment of Del Monte Produce. A stevedore is not a common carrier for it does not transport goods or passengers; it is not akin to a warehouseman for it does not store goods for profit. The loading and stowing of cargoes would not have a far reaching public ramification as that of a common carrier and a warehouseman; the public is adequately protected by our laws on contract and on quasi-delict. The public policy considerations in legally imposing upon a common carrier or a warehouseman a higher degree of diligence is not present in a stevedoring outfit which mainly provides labor in loading and stowing of cargoes for its clients. In the third issue, Phoenix and McGee failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that Mindanao Terminal had acted negligently. Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is any doubt on which side the evidence preponderates the party having the burden of proof fails upon that issue. That is to say, if the evidence touching a disputed fact is equally balanced, or if it does not produce a just, rational belief of its existence, or if it leaves the mind in a state of perplexity, the party 26 holding the affirmative as to such fact must fail. 1avvphi1 We adopt the findings of the RTC, which are not disputed by Phoenix and McGee. The Court of Appeals did not make any new findings of fact when it reversed the decision of the trial court. The only participation of Mindanao Terminal was to load the cargoes 29 on board M/V Mistrau. It was not disputed by Phoenix and McGee that the materials, such as ropes, pallets, and cardboards, 30 used in lashing and rigging the cargoes were all provided by M/V Mistrau and these materials meets industry standard. It was further established that Mindanao Terminal loaded and stowed the cargoes of Del Monte Produce aboard the M/V Mistrau in accordance with the stowage plan, a guide for the area assignments of the goods in the vessels hold, prepared by Del Monte 31 Produce and the officers of M/V Mistrau. The loading and stowing was done under the direction and supervision of the ship officers. The vessels officer would order the closing of the hatches only if the loading was done correctly after a final 32 inspection. The said ship officers would not have accepted the cargoes on board the vessel if they were not properly arranged and tightly secured to withstand the voyage in open seas. They would order the stevedore to rectify any error in its loading and stowing. A foremans report, as proof of work done on board the vessel, was prepared by the checkers of Mindanao Terminal and 33 concurred in by the Chief Officer of M/V Mistrau after they were satisfied that the cargoes were properly loaded. Phoenix and McGee relied heavily on the deposition of Byeong Yong Ahn and on the survey report of the damage to the 36 cargoes. Byeong, whose testimony was refreshed by the survey report, found that the cause of the damage was improper 37 stowage due to the manner the cargoes were arranged such that there were no spaces between cartons, the use of cardboards as support system, and the use of small rope to tie the cartons together but not by the negligent conduct of Mindanao Terminal in 38 loading and stowing the cargoes. As admitted by Phoenix and McGee in their Comment before us, the latter is merely a stevedoring company which was tasked by Del Monte to load and stow the shipments of fresh banana and pineapple of Del Monte Produce aboard the M/V Mistrau. How and where it should load and stow a shipment in a vessel is wholly dependent on the
34 35 27 28 25 24 21

shipper and the officers of the vessel. In other words, the work of the stevedore was under the supervision of the shipper and officers of the vessel. Even the materials used for stowage, such as ropes, pallets, and cardboards, are provided for by the vessel. Even the survey report found that it was because of the boisterous stormy weather due to the typhoon Seth, as encountered by M/V Mistrau during its voyage, which caused the shipments in the cargo hold to collapse, shift and bruise in extensive 39 extent. Even the deposition of Byeong was not supported by the conclusion in the survey report that: CAUSE OF DAMAGE xxx From the above facts and our survey results, we are of the opinion that damage occurred aboard the carrying vessel during sea transit, being caused by ships heavy rolling and pitching under boisterous weather while proceeding from 1600 hrs on 7th October 40 to 0700 hrs on 12th October, 1994 as described in the sea protest. As it is clear that Mindanao Terminal had duly exercised the required degree of diligence in loading and stowing the cargoes, which is the ordinary diligence of a good father of a family, the grant of the petition is in order. However, the Court finds no basis for the award of attorneys fees in favor of petitioner.lawphil.net None of the circumstances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code exists. The present case is clearly not an unfounded civil action against the plaintiff as there is no showing that it was instituted for the mere purpose of vexation or injury. It is not sound public policy to set a premium to 41 the right to litigate where such right is exercised in good faith, even if erroneously. Likewise, the RTC erred in awarding P83,945.80 actual damages to Mindanao Terminal. Although actual expenses were incurred by Mindanao Terminal in relation to the trial of this case in Davao City, the lawyer of Mindanao Terminal incurred expenses for plane fare, hotel accommodations and food, as well as other miscellaneous expenses, as he attended the trials coming all the way from Manila. But there is no showing that Phoenix and McGee made a false claim against Mindanao Terminal resulting in the protracted trial of the 42 case necessitating the incurrence of expenditures. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66121 is SET ASIDE and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 12 in Civil Case No. 25,311.97 is herebyREINSTATED MINUS the awards of P100,000.00 as attorneys fees and P83,945.80 as actual damages. SO ORDERED

ARRIETA vs. NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION G.R. No. L-15645; January 31, 1964 REGALA, J.: This is an appeal of the defendant-appellant NARIC from the decision of the trial court dated February 20, 1958, awarding to the plaintiffs-appellees the amount of $286,000.00 as damages for breach of contract and dismissing the counterclaim and third party complaint of the defendant-appellant NARIC. In accordance with Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3452, "the National Rice and Corn Administration (NARIC) is hereby abolished and all its assets, liabilities, functions, powers which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and all personnel are transferred "to the Rice and Corn Administration (RCA). All references, therefore, to the NARIC in this decision must accordingly be adjusted and read as RCA pursuant to the aforementioned law. On May 19, 1952, plaintiff-appellee participated in the public bidding called by the NARIC for the supply of 20,000 metric tons of Burmese rice. As her bid of $203.00 per metric ton was the lowest, she was awarded the contract for the same. Accordingly, on July 1, 1952, plaintiff-appellee Paz P. Arrieta and the appellant corporation entered into a Contract of Sale of Rice, under the terms of which the former obligated herself to deliver to the latter 20,000 metric tons of Burmess Rice at $203.00 per metric ton, CIF Manila. In turn, the defendant corporation committed itself to pay for the imported rice "by means of an irrevocable, confirmed and assignable letter of credit in U.S. currency in favor of the plaintiff-appellee and/or supplier in Burma, immediately." Despite the commitment to pay immediately "by means of an irrevocable, confirmed and assignable Letter of Credit," however, it was only on July 30, 1952, or a full month from the execution of the contract, that the defendant corporation, thru its general manager, took the first to open a letter of credit by forwarding to the Philippine National Bank its Application for Commercial Letter Credit. The application was accompanied by a transmittal letter, the relevant paragraphs of which read: In view of the fact that we do not have sufficient deposit with your institution with which to cover the amount required to be deposited as a condition for the opening of letters of credit, we will appreciate it if this application could be considered special case. We understand that our supplier, Mrs. Paz P. Arrieta, has a deadline to meet which is August 4, 1952, and in order to comply therewith, it is imperative that the L/C be opened prior to that date. We would therefore request your full cooperation on this matter. On the same day, July 30, 1952, Mrs. Paz P. Arrieta thru counsel, advised the appellant corporation of the extreme necessity for the immediate opening of the letter credit since she had by then made a tender to her supplier in Rangoon, Burma, "equivalent to 5% of the F.O.B. price of 20,000 tons at $180.70 and in compliance with the regulations in Rangoon this 5% will be confiscated if the required letter of credit is not received by them before August 4, 1952." On August 4, 1952, the Philippine National Bank informed the appellant corporation that its application, "for a letter of credit for $3,614,000.00 in favor of Thiri Setkya has been approved by the Board of Directors with the condition that marginal cash deposit be paid and that drafts are to be paid upon presentment." (Exh. J-pl.; Exh. 10-def., p. 19, Folder of Exhibits). Furthermore, the Bank represented that it "will hold your application in abeyance pending compliance with the above stated requirement."

As it turned out, however, the appellant corporation not in any financial position to meet the condition. As matter of fact, in a letter dated August 2, 1952, the NARIC bluntly confessed to the appellee its dilemma: "In this connection, please be advised that our application for opening of the letter of credit has been presented to the bank since July 30th but the latter requires that we first deposit 50% of the value of the letter amounting to aproximately $3,614,000.00 which we are not in a position to meet." (Emphasis supplied. Exh. 9-Def.; Exh. 1-Pe., p. 18, Folder of Exhibits) Consequently, the credit instrument applied for was opened only on September 8, 1952 "in favor of Thiri Setkya, Rangoon, Burma, and/or assignee for $3,614,000.00," (which is more than two months from the execution of the contract) the party named by the appellee as beneficiary of the letter of credit.1wph1.t As a result of the delay, the allocation of appellee's supplier in Rangoon was cancelled and the 5% deposit, amounting to 524,000 kyats or approximately P200,000.00 was forfeited. In this connection, it must be made of record that although the Burmese authorities had set August 4, 1952, as the deadline for the remittance of the required letter of credit, the cancellation of the allocation and the confiscation of the 5% deposit were not effected until August 20, 1952, or, a full half month after the expiration of the deadline. And yet, even with the 15-day grace, appellant corporation was unable to make good its commitment to open the disputed letter of credit.

The appellee endeavored, but failed, to restore the cancelled Burmese rice allocation. When the futility of reinstating the same became apparent, she offered to substitute Thailand rice instead to the defendant NARIC, communicating at the same time that the offer was "a solution which should be beneficial to the NARIC and to us at the same time." (Exh. X-Pe., Exh. 25Def., p. 38, Folder of Exhibits). This offer for substitution, however, was rejected by the appellant in a resolution dated November 15, 1952. On the foregoing, the appellee sent a letter to the appellant, demanding compensation for the damages caused her in the sum of $286,000.00, U.S. currency, representing unrealized profit. The demand having been rejected she instituted this case now on appeal. At the instance of the NARIC, a counterclaim was filed and the Manila Underwriters Insurance Company was brought to the suit as a third party defendant to hold it liable on the performance bond it executed in favor of the plaintiff-appellee. We find for the appellee. It is clear upon the records that the sole and principal reason for the cancellation of the allocation contracted by the appellee herein in Rangoon, Burma, was the failure of the letter of credit to be opened with the contemplated period. This failure must, therefore, be taken as the immediate cause for the consequent damage which resulted. As it is then, the disposition of this case depends on a determination of who was responsible for such failure. Stated differently, the issue is whether appellant's failure to open immediately the letter of credit in dispute amounted to a breach of the contract of July 1, 1952 for which it may be held liable in damages. Appellant corporation disclaims responsibility for the delay in the opening of the letter of credit. On the contrary, it insists that the fault lies with the appellee. Appellant contends that the disputed negotiable instrument was not promptly secured because the appellee , failed to seasonably furnish data necessary and required for opening the same, namely, "(1) the amount of the letter of credit, (2) the person, company or corporation in whose favor it is to be opened, and (3) the place and bank where it may be negotiated." Appellant would have this Court believe, therefore, that had these informations been forthwith furnished it, there would have been no delay in securing the instrument. Appellant's explanation has neither force nor merit. In the first place, the explanation reaches into an area of the proceedings into which We are not at liberty to encroach. The explanation refers to a question of fact. Nothing in the record suggests any arbitrary or abusive conduct on the part of the trial judge in the formulation of the ruling. His conclusion on the matter is sufficiently borne out by the evidence presented. We are denied, therefore, the prerogative to disturb that finding, consonant to the time-honored tradition of this Tribunal to hold trial judges better situated to make conclusions on questions of fact. For the record, We quote hereunder the lower court's ruling on the point: The defense that the delay, if any in opening the letter of credit was due to the failure of plaintiff to name the supplier, the amount and the bank is not tenable. Plaintiff stated in Court that these facts were known to defendant even before the contract was executed because these facts were necessarily revealed to the defendant before she could qualify as a bidder. She stated too that she had given the necessary data immediately after the execution of Exh. "A" (the contract of July 1, 1952) to Mr. GABRIEL BELMONTE, General Manager of the NARIC, both orally and in writing and that she also pressed for the opening of the letter of credit on these occasions. These statements have not been controverted and defendant NARIC, notwithstanding its previous intention to do so, failed to present Mr. Belmonte to testify or refute this. ... Secondly, from the correspondence and communications which form part of the record of this case, it is clear that what singularly delayed the opening of the stipulated letter of credit and which, in turn, caused the cancellation of the allocation in Burma, was the inability of the appellant corporation to meet the condition importation by the Bank for granting the same. We do not think the appellant corporation can refute the fact that had it been able to put up the 50% marginal cash deposit demanded by the bank, then the letter of credit would have been approved, opened and released as early as August 4, 1952. The letter of the Philippine National Bank to the NARIC was plain and explicit that as of the said date, appellant's "application for a letter of credit ... has been approved by the Board of Directors with the condition that 50% marginal cash deposit be paid and that drafts are to be paid upon presentment." (Emphasis supplied) The liability of the appellant, however, stems not alone from this failure or inability to satisfy the requirements of the bank. Its culpability arises from its willful and deliberate assumption of contractual obligations even as it was well aware of its financial incapacity to undertake the prestation. We base this judgment upon the letter which accompanied the application filed by the appellant with the bank, a part of which letter was quoted earlier in this decision. In the said accompanying correspondence, appellant admitted and owned that it did "not have sufficient deposit with your institution (the PNB) with which to cover the amount required to be deposited as a condition for the opening of letters of credit. ... . A number of logical inferences may be drawn from the aforementioned admission. First, that the appellant knew the bank requirements for opening letters of credit; second, that appellant also knew it could not meet those requirement. When, therefore, despite this awareness that was financially incompetent to open a letter of credit immediately, appellant agreed in paragraph 8 of the contract to pay immediately "by means of an irrevocable, confirm and assignable letter of credit," it must be similarly held to have bound itself to answer for all and every consequences that would result from the representation. aptly observed by the trial court:

... Having called for bids for the importation of rice involving millions, $4,260,000.00 to be exact, it should have a certained its ability and capacity to comply with the inevitably requirements in cash to pay for such importation. Having announced the bid, it must be deemed to have impliedly assured suppliers of its capacity and facility to finance the importation within the required period, especially since it had imposed the supplier the 90-day period within which the shipment of the rice must be brought into the Philippines. Having entered in the contract, it should have taken steps immediately to arrange for the letter of credit for the large amount involved and inquired into the possibility of its issuance. In relation to the aforequoted observation of the trial court, We would like to make reference also to Article 11 of the Civil Code which provides: Those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable in damages. Under this provision, not only debtors guilty of fraud, negligence or default in the performance of obligations a decreed liable; in general, every debtor who fails in performance of his obligations is bound to indemnify for the losses and damages caused thereby (De la Cruz Seminary of Manila, 18 Phil. 330; Municipality of Moncada v. Cajuigan, 21 Phil. 184; De la Cavada v. Diaz, 37 Phil. 982; Maluenda & Co. v. Enriquez, 46 Phil. 916; Pasumil v. Chong, 49 Phil. 1003; Pando v. Gimenez, 54 Phil. 459; Acme Films v. Theaters Supply, 63 Phil. 657). The phrase "any manner contravene the tenor" of the obligation includes any illicit act which impairs the strict and faithful fulfillment of the obligation or every kind or defective performance. (IV Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, citing authorities, p. 103.) The NARIC would also have this Court hold that the subsequent offer to substitute Thailand rice for the originally contracted Burmese rice amounted to a waiver by the appellee of whatever rights she might have derived from the breach of the contract. We disagree. Waivers are not presumed, but must be clearly and convincingly shown, either by express stipulation or acts admitting no other reasonable explanation. (Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, 52 O.G. 779.) In the case at bar, no such intent to waive has been established. We have carefully examined and studied the oral and documentary evidence presented in this case and upon which the lower court based its award. Under the contract, the NARIC bound itself to buy 20,000 metric tons of Burmese rice at "$203.00 U.S. Dollars per metric ton, all net shipped weight, and all in U.S. currency, C.I.F. Manila ..." On the other hand, documentary and other evidence establish with equal certainty that the plaintiff-appellee was able to secure the contracted commodity at the cost price of $180.70 per metric ton from her supplier in Burma. Considering freights, insurance and charges incident to its shipment here and the forfeiture of the 5% deposit, the award granted by the lower court is fair and equitable. For a clearer view of the equity of the damages awarded, We reproduce below the testimony of the appellee, adequately supported by the evidence and record: Q. Will you please tell the court, how much is the damage you suffered? A. Because the selling price of my rice is $203.00 per metric ton, and the cost price of my rice is $180.00 We had to pay also $6.25 for shipping and about $164 for insurance. So adding the cost of the rice, the freight, the insurance, the total would be about $187.99 that would be $15.01 gross profit per metric ton, multiply by 20,000 equals $300,200, that is my supposed profit if I went through the contract. The above testimony of the plaintiff was a general approximation of the actual figures involved in the transaction. A precise and more exact demonstration of the equity of the award herein is provided by Exhibit HH of the plaintiff and Exhibit 34 of the defendant, hereunder quoted so far as germane. It is equally of record now that as shown in her request dated July 29, 1959, and other communications subsequent thereto for the opening by your corporation of the required letter of credit, Mrs. Arrieta was supposed to pay her supplier in Burma at the rate of One Hundred Eighty Dollars and Seventy Cents ($180.70) in U.S. Currency, per ton plus Eight Dollars ($8.00) in the same currency per ton for shipping and other handling expenses, so that she is already assured of a net profit of Fourteen Dollars and Thirty Cents ($14.30), U.S., Currency, per ton or a total of Two Hundred and Eighty Six Thousand Dollars ($286,000.00), U.S. Currency, in the aforesaid transaction. ... Lastly, herein appellant filed a counterclaim asserting that it has suffered, likewise by way of unrealized profit damages in the total sum of $406,000.00 from the failure of the projected contract to materialize. This counterclaim was supported by a cost study made and submitted by the appellant itself and wherein it was illustrated how indeed had the importation pushed thru, NARIC would have realized in profit the amount asserted in the counterclaim. And yet, the said amount of P406,000.00 was realizable by appellant despite a number of expenses which the appellee under the contract, did not have to incur. Thus, under the cost study submitted by the appellant, banking and unloading charges were to be shouldered by it, including an Import License Fee of 2% and superintendence fee of $0.25 per metric ton. If the NARIC stood to profit over P400 000.00 from the disputed transaction inspite of the extra expenditures from which the herein appellee was exempt, we are convicted of the fairness of the judgment presently under appeal.

In the premises, however, a minor modification must be effected in the dispositive portion of the decision appeal from insofar as it expresses the amount of damages in U.S. currency and not in Philippine Peso. Republic Act 529 specifically requires the discharge of obligations only "in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts." In view of that law, therefore, the award should be converted into and expressed in Philippine Peso. This brings us to a consideration of what rate of exchange should apply in the conversion here decreed. Should it be at the time of the breach, at the time the obligation was incurred or at the rate of exchange prevailing on the promulgation of this decision. In the case of Engel v. Velasco & Co., 47 Phil. 115, We ruled that in an action for recovery of damages for breach of contract, even if the obligation assumed by the defendant was to pay the plaintiff a sum of money expressed in American currency, the indemnity to be allowed should be expressed in Philippine currency at the rate of exchange at the time of the judgment rather than at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of defendant's breach. This ruling, however, can neither be applied nor extended to the case at bar for the same was laid down when there was no law against stipulating foreign currencies in Philippine contracts. But now we have Republic Act No. 529 which expressly declares such stipulations as contrary to public policy, void and of no effect. And, as We already pronounced in the case of Eastboard Navigation, Ltd. v. Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-9090, September 10, 1957, if there is any agreement to pay an obligation in a currency other than Philippine legal tender, the same is null and void as contrary to public policy (Republic Act 529), and the most that could be demanded is to pay said obligation in Philippine currency "to be measured in the prevailing rate of exchange at the time the obligation was incurred (Sec. 1, idem)." UPON ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the sole modification that the award should be converted into the Philippine peso at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time the obligation was incurred or on July 1, 1952 when the contract was executed. The appellee insurance company, in the light of this judgment, is relieved of any liability under this suit. No pronouncement as to costs. Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Concepcion, Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur. Barrera, J., took no part. Reyes, J.B.L., J., reserves his vote.

UNLAD RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. DRAGON G.R. No. 149338; July 28, 2008 NACHURA, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking the reversal of the November 29, 2000 Decision1 and August 2, 2001 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 54226. The facts, as found by the CA, are as follows: On December 29, 1981, the Plaintiffs (herein respondents) and defendant (herein petitioner) Unlad Resources, through its Chairman[,] Helena Z. Benitez[,] entered into a Memorandum of Agreement wherein it is provided that [respondents], as controlling stockholders of the Rural Bank [of Noveleta] shall allow Unlad Resources to invest four million eight hundred thousand pesos (P4,800,000.00) in the Rural Bank in the form of additional equity. On the other hand, [petitioner] Unlad Resources bound itself to invest the said amount of 4.8 million pesos in the Rural Bank; upon signing, it was, likewise, agreed that [petitioner] Unlad Resources shall subscribe to a minimum of four hundred eighty thousand pesos (P480,000.00) (sic) common or preferred non-voting shares of stock with a total par value of four million eight hundred thousand pesos (P4,800,000.00) and pay up immediately one million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000.00) for said subscription; that the [respondents], upon the signing of the said agreement shall transfer control and management over the Rural Bank to Unlad Resources. According to the [respondents], immediately after the signing of the agreement, they complied with their obligation and transferred control of the Rural Bank to Unlad Resources and its nominees and the Bank was renamed the Unlad Rural Bank of Noveleta, Inc. However, [respondents] claim that despite repeated demands, Unlad Resources has failed and refused to comply with their obligation under the said Memorandum of Agreement when it did not invest four million eight hundred thousand pesos (P4,800,000.00) in the Rural Bank in the form of additional equity and, likewise, it failed to immediately infuse one million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000.00) as paid in capital upon signing of the Memorandum of Agreement. On August 10, 1984, the Board of Directors of [petitioner] Unlad Resources passed Resolution No. 84-041 authorizing the President and the General Manager to lease a mango plantation situated in Naic, Cavite. Pursuant to this Resolution, the Bank as [lessee] entered into a Contract of Lease with the [petitioner] Helena Z. Benitez as [lessor]. The management of the mango plantation was undertaken by Unlad Commodities, Inc., a subsidiary of Unlad Resources[,] under a Management Contract Agreement. The Management Contract provides that Unlad Commodities, Inc. would receive eighty percent (80%) of the net profits generated by the operation of the mango plantation while the Banks share is twenty percent (20%). It was further agreed that at the end of the lease period, the Rural Bank shall turn over to the lessor all permanent improvements introduced by it on the plantation. xxxx On May 20, 1987, *petitioner+ Unlad Rural Bank wrote *respondents+ regarding *the+ Central Banks approval to retire its [Development Bank of the Philippines] preferred shares in the amount of P219,000.00 and giving notice for subscription to proportionate shares. The [respondents] objected on the grounds that there is already a sinking fund for the retirement of the said DBP-held preferred shares provided for annually and that it could deprive the Rural Bank of a cheap source of fund. (sic) [Respondents] alleged compliance with all of their obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement in that they have transferred control and management over the Rural bank to the [petitioners] and are ready, willing and able to allow [petitioners] to subscribe to a minimum of four hundred eighty thousand (P480,000.00) (sic) common or preferred non-voting shares of stocks with a total par value of four million eight hundred thousand pesos (P4,800,000.00) in the Rural Bank. However, [petitioners] have failed and refused to subscribe to the said shares of stock and to pay the initial amount of one million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000.00) for said subscription.3 On July 3, 1987, herein respondents filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 61 a Complaint4 for rescission of the agreement and the return of control and management of the Rural Bank from petitioners to respondents, plus damages. After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision,5 the dispositive portion of which provides: WHEREFORE, Premises Considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows: 1. The Memorandum of Agreement dated 29 December 1991 (sic) is hereby declared rescinded and: (a) Defendant Unlad Resources Development Corporation is hereby ordered to immediately return control and management over the Rural Bank of Noveleta, Inc. to Plaintiffs; and (b) Unlad Rural Bank of Noveleta, Inc. is hereby ordered to return to Defendants the sum of One Million Three Thousand Seventy Pesos (P1,003,070.00) 2. The Director for Rural Banks of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is hereby appointed as Receiver of the Rural Bank;

3. Unlad Rural Bank of Noveleta, Inc. is hereby enjoined from placing the retired DBP-held preferred shares available for subscription and the same is hereby ordered to be placed under a sinking fund; 4. Defendant Unlad Resources Development Corporation is hereby ordered to pay plaintiffs the following: (a) actual compensatory damages amounting to Four Million Six Hundred One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty- Five and 38/100 Pesos (P4,601,765.38); (b) moral damages in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00); (c) exemplary and corrective damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00); and (d) attorneys fees in the sum of (P100,000.00), plus cost of suit. SO ORDERED.6 Herein petitioners appealed the ruling to the CA. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss and, subsequently, a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, which were both denied. Later, however, the CA, in a Decision dated November 29, 2000, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC Decision in all respects. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied in CA Resolution dated August 2, 2001. Petitioners are now before this Court alleging that the CA committed a grave and serious reversible error in issuing the assailed Decision. Petitioners question the jurisdiction of the trial court, something they have done from the beginning of the controversy, contending that the issues that respondents raised before the trial court are intra-corporate in nature and are, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court. They point out that respondents complaint charged them with mismanagement and alleged dissipation of the assets of the Rural Bank. Since the complaint challenges corporate actions and decisions of the Board of Directors and prays for the recovery of the control and management of the Rural Bank, these matters fall outside the jurisdiction of the trial court. Thus, they posit that the judgment of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, is null and void and may be impugned at any time. Petitioners further argue that the action instituted by respondents had already prescribed, because Article 1389 of the Civil Code provides that an action for rescission must be commenced within four years. They claim that the trial court and the CA mistakenly applied Article 1144 of the Civil Code which treats of prescription of actions in general. They submit that Article 1389, which deals specifically with actions for rescission, is the applicable law. Moreover, petitioners assert that they have fully complied with their undertaking under the subject Memorandum of Agreement, but that the undertaking has become a "legal and factual impossibility" because the authorized capital stock of the Rural Bank was increased from P1.7 million to only P5 million, and could not accommodate the subscription by petitioners of P4.8 million worth of shares. Such deficiency, petitioners contend, is with the knowledge and approval of respondent Renato P. Dragon and his nominees to the Board of Directors. Petitioners, without conceding the propriety of the judgment of rescission, also argue that the subject Memorandum of Agreement could not just be ordered rescinded without the corresponding order for the restitution of the parties total contributions and/or investments in the Rural Bank. Finally, they assail the award for moral and exemplary damages, as well as the award for attorneys fees, as bereft of factual and legal bases given that, in the body of the Decision, it was merely stated that respondents suffered moral damages without any discussion or explanation of, nor any justification for such award. Likewise, the matter of attorneys fees was not at all discussed in the body of the Decision. Petitioners claim that pursuant to the prevailing rule, attorneys fees cannot be recovered in the absence of stipulation. On the other hand, respondents declare that immediately after the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement, they complied with their obligation and transferred control of the Rural Bank to petitioner Unlad Resources and its nominees, but that, despite repeated demands, petitioners have failed and refused to comply with their concomitant obligations under the Agreement. Respondents narrate that shortly after taking over the Rural Bank, petitioners Conrado L. Benitez II and Jorge C. Cerbo, as President and General Manager, respectively, entered into a Contract of Lease over the Naic, Cavite mango plantation, and that, as a consequence of this venture, the bank incurred expenses amounting to P475,371.57, equivalent to 25.76% of its capital and surplus. The respondents further assert that the Central Bank found this undertaking not inherently connected with bona fide rural banking operations, nor does it fall within the allied undertakings permitted under Section 26 of Central Bank Circular No. 741 and Section 3379 of the Manual of Regulations of the Central Bank. Thus, respondents contend that this circumstance, coupled with the fact that petitioners Helena Z. Benitez and Conrado L. Benitez II were also stockholders and members of the Board of Directors of Unlad Resources, Unlad Rural Bank, and Unlad Commodities at that time, is adequate proof that the Rural Banks management had every intention of diverting, dissipating, and/or wasting the banks assets for petitioners own gain. They likewise allege that because of the failure of petitioners to comply with their obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement, respondents, with the exception of Tarcisius Rodriguez, lodged a complaint with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC), seeking rescission of the Agreement, damages, and the appointment of a management committee, but the SEC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, when the Rural Bank informed respondents of the Central Banks approval of its plan to retire its DBP-held preferred shares, giving notices for subscription to proportionate shares, respondents objected on the ground that there was already a sinking fund for the retirement of said shares provided for annually, and that the retirement would deprive the petitioner Rural Bank of a cheap source of fund. It was at that point, respondents claim, that they instituted the aforementioned Complaint against petitioners before the RTC of Makati. The respondents also seek the outright dismissal of this Petition for lack of verification as to petitioners Helena Z. Benitez and Conrado L. Benitez II; lack of proper verification as to petitioners Unlad Resources Development Corporation, Unlad Rural Bank of Noveleta, Inc., and Unlad Commodities, Inc.; lack of proper verified statement of material dates; and lack of proper sworn certification of non-forum shopping. They support the proposition that Tijam v. Sibonghanoy7 applies, and that petitioners are indeed estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court. They also share the lower courts view that it is Article 1144 of the Civil Code, and not Article 1389, that is applicable to this case. Finally, respondents allege that the failure of petitioner Unlad Resources to comply with its undertaking under the Agreement, as uniformly found by the trial court and the CA, may no longer be assailed in the instant Petition, and that the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees is justified. The Petition is bereft of merit. We uphold the Decision of the CA affirming that of the RTC. First, the subject of jurisdiction. The main issue in this case is the rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement. This is to be distinguished from respondents allegation of the alleged mismanagement and dissipation of corporate assets by the petitioners which is based on the prayer for receivership over the bank. The two issues, albeit related, are obviously separate, as they pertain to different acts of the parties involved. The issue of receivership does not arise from the parties obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement, but rather from specific acts attributed to petitioners as members of the Board of Directors of the Bank. Clearly, the rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement is a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the trial courts, notwithstanding the fact that the parties involved are all directors of the same corporation. Still, the petitioners insist that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the complaint because the issues involved are intracorporate in nature. This argument miserably fails to persuade. The law in force at the time of the filing of the case was Presidential Decree (P.D.) 902-A, Section 5(b) of which vested the Securities and Exchange Commission with original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving controversies arising out of intra-corporate relations.8 Interpreting this statutorily conferred jurisdiction on the SEC, this Court had occasion to state: Nowhere in said decree do we find even so much as an [intimation] that absolute jurisdiction and control is vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission in all matters affecting corporations. To uphold the respondents arguments would remove without legal imprimatur from the regular courts all conflicts over matters involving or affecting corporations, regardless of the nature of the transactions which give rise to such disputes. The courts would then be divested of jurisdiction not by reason of the nature of the dispute submitted to them for adjudication, but solely for the reason that the dispute involves a corporation. This cannot be done.9 It is well to remember that the respondents had actually filed with the SEC a case against the petitioners which, however, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the pendency of the case before the RTC.10 The SECs Order dismissing the respondents complaint is instructive: From the foregoing allegations, it is apparent that the present action involves two separate causes of action which are interrelated, and the resolution of which hinges on the very document sought to be rescinded. The assertion that the defendants failed to comply with their contractual undertaking and the claim for rescission of the contract by the plaintiffs has, in effect, put in issue the very status of the herein defendants as stockholders of the Rural Bank. The issue as to whether or not the defendants are stockholders of the Rural Bank is a pivotal issue to be determined on the basis of the Memorandum of Agreement. It is a prejudicial question and a logical antecedent to confer jurisdiction to this Commission. It is to be noted, however, that determination of the contractual undertaking of the parties under a contract lies with the Regional Trial Courts and not with this Commission. x x x11 Be that as it may, this point has been rendered moot by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8799, also known as the Securities Regulation Code. This law, which took effect in 2000, has transferred jurisdiction over such disputes to the RTC. Specifically, R.A. 8799 provides: Sec. 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission

xxxx 5.2. The Commissions jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, That the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over these cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed. Section 5 of P.D. No. 902-A reads, thus: Sec. 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission over corporations, partnerships and other forms of associations registered with it as expressly granted under existing laws and decrees, it shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving: a) Devices and schemes employed by or any acts of the board of directors, business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the stockholder, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the Commission; b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and among stockholders, members, or associates; between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity; c) Controversies in the election or appointment of directors, trustees, officers or managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations. Consequently, whether the cause of action stems from a contractual dispute or one that involves intra-corporate matters, the RTC already has jurisdiction over this case. In this light, the question of whether the doctrine of estoppel by laches applies, as enunciated by this Court in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, no longer finds relevance. Second, the issue of prescription. Petitioners further contend that the action for rescission has prescribed under Article 1398 of the Civil Code, which provides: Article 1389. The action to claim rescission must be commenced within four years x x x. This is an erroneous proposition. Article 1389 specifically refers to rescissible contracts as, clearly, this provision is under the chapter entitled "Rescissible Contracts." In a previous case,12 this Court has held that Article 1389: applies to rescissible contracts, as enumerated and defined in Articles 1380 and 1381. We must stress however, that the "rescission" in Article 1381 is not akin to the term "rescission" in Article 1191 and Article 1592. In Articles 1191 and 1592, the rescission is a principal action which seeks the resolution or cancellation of the contract while in Article 1381, the action is a subsidiary one limited to cases of rescission for lesion as enumerated in said article. The prescriptive period applicable to rescission under Articles 1191 and 1592, is found in Article 1144, which provides that the action upon a written contract should be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues. Article 1381 sets out what are rescissible contracts, to wit: Article 1381. The following contracts are rescissible: (1) Those which are entered into by guardians whenever the wards whom they represent suffer lesion by more than one-fourth of the value of the things which are the object thereof; (2) Those agreed upon in representation of absentees, if the latter suffer the lesion stated in the preceding number; (3) Those undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in any other manner collect the claims due them; (4) Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered into by the defendant without the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of competent judicial authority; (5) All other contracts specially declared by law to be subject to rescission.

The Memorandum of Agreement subject of this controversy does not fall under the above enumeration. Accordingly, the prescriptive period that should apply to this case is that provided for in Article 1144, to wit: Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues: (1) Upon a written contract; xxxx Based on the records of this case, the action was commenced on July 3, 1987, while the Memorandum of Agreement was entered into on December 29, 1981. Article 1144 specifically provides that the 10-year period is counted from "the time the right of action accrues." The right of action accrues from the moment the breach of right or duty occurs.13 Thus, the original Complaint was filed well within the prescriptive period. We now proceed to determine if the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, correctly ruled for the rescission of the subject Agreement. Petitioners contend that they have fully complied with their obligation under the Memorandum of Agreement. They allege that due to respondents failure to increase the capital stock of the corporation to an amount that will accommodate their undertaking, it had become impossible for them to perform their end of the Agreement. Again, petitioners contention is untenable. There is no question that petitioners herein failed to fulfill their obligation under the Memorandum of Agreement. Even they admit the same, albeit laying the blame on respondents. It is true that respondents increased the Rural Banks authorized capital stock to only P5 million, which was not enough to accommodate the P4.8 million worth of stocks that petitioners were to subscribe to and pay for. However, respondents failure to fulfill their undertaking in the agreement would have given rise to the scenario contemplated by Article 1191 of the Civil Code, which reads: Article 1191. The power to rescind reciprocal obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible. The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period. This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with Articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law. Thus, petitioners should have exacted fulfillment from the respondents or asked for the rescission of the contract instead of simply not performing their part of the Agreement. But in the course of things, it was the respondents who availed of the remedy under Article 1191, opting for the rescission of the Agreement in order to regain control of the Rural Bank. Having determined that the rescission of the subject Memorandum of Agreement was in order, the trial court ordered petitioner Unlad Resources to return to respondents the management and control of the Rural Bank and for the latter to return the sum of P1,003,070.00 to petitioners. Mutual restitution is required in cases involving rescission under Article 1191. This means bringing the parties back to their original status prior to the inception of the contract.14 Article 1385 of the Civil Code provides, thus: ART. 1385. Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest; consequently, it can be carried out only when he who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obligated to restore. Neither shall rescission take place when the things which are the object of the contract are legally in the possession of third persons who did not act in bad faith. In this case, indemnity for damages may be demanded from the person causing the loss. This Court has consistently ruled that this provision applies to rescission under Article 1191: [S]ince Article 1385 of the Civil Code expressly and clearly states that "rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest," the Court finds no justification to sustain petitioners position that said Article 1385 does not apply to rescission under Article 1191.15

Rescission has the effect of "unmaking a contract, or its undoing from the beginning, and not merely its termination."16 Hence, rescission creates the obligation to return the object of the contract. It can be carried out only when the one who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to restore. To rescind is to declare a contract void at its inception and to put an end to it as though it never was. It is not merely to terminate it and release the parties from further obligations to each other, but to abrogate it from the beginning and restore the parties to their relative positions as if no contract has been made.17 Accordingly, when a decree for rescission is handed down, it is the duty of the court to require both parties to surrender that which they have respectively received and to place each other as far as practicable in his original situation. The rescission has the effect of abrogating the contract in all parts.18 Clearly, the petitioners failed to fulfill their end of the agreement, and thus, there was just cause for rescission. With the contract thus rescinded, the parties must be restored to the status quo ante, that is, before they entered into the Memorandum of Agreement. Finally, we must resolve the question of the propriety of the award for damages and attorneys fees. The trial courts Decision mentioned that the "evidence is clear and convincing that Plaintiffs (herein respondents) suffered actual compensatory damages amounting to Four Million Six Hundred One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Five and 38/100 Pesos (P4,601,765.38) moral damages and attorneys fees." Though not discussed in the body of the Decision, the records show that the amount of P4,601,765.38 pertains to actual losses incurred by respondents as a result of petitioners non-compliance with their undertaking under the Memorandum of Agreement. On this point, respondent Dragon presented testimonial and documentary evidence to prove the actual amount of damages, thus: Atty. Cruz Q: Was there any consequence to you Mr. Dragon due to any breach of the agreement marked as Exhibit A? A: Yes sir I could have earned thru the shares of stock that I have, or we have or we had by this time amounting to several millions pesos (sic). They have only put in the whole amount that we have agreed upon (sic). Q: In this connection did you cause computation of these losses that you incured (sic)? A: Yes sir. xxxx Q: Will you please kindly go through this computation and explain the same to the Honorable Court? A: Number 1 is an Organ (sic) income from the sale of 60% (sic) at only Three Hundred Ninety Nine Thousand Two hundred for Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty shares which should have been sold if it were sold to others for P50.00 each for a total of Nine Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand but sold to them for Three Hundred Ninety nine (sic) Thousand two (sic) Hundred only and of which only Three Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred was paid to me. Therefore, there was a difference of Six Hundred Seven Three (sic) Thousand Four Hundred (P673,400.00). On the basis of the commulative (sic) lost income every year from March 1982 from the amount of Seven Six Hundred (sic) Seventy Three Thousand four (sic) Hundred (P673,400.) (sic) there would be a discommulative (sic) lost (sic) of One Million Ninety Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Two Pesos and forty two (sic) centavos (P1,093,952.42). Please note that the interest imputed is only at 12% per annum but it should had (sic) been much higher. In 1984 to 1986 (sic) alone rates went as higher (sic) as 40% per annum from the so called (sic) Jobo Bills and yet we only computed the imputed income or lost income at 12% per annum and then there is a 40% participation on the unrealized earnings due to their failure to put in an stabilized (sic) earnings. You will note that if they put in 4.8 million Pesos and it would be earning money, 40% of that will go to us because 40% of the bank would be ours and 60% would be there (sic). But because they did put in the 4.8 million our 40% did not earn up to that extent and computed again on the basis of 12% the amount (sic) on the commulative (sic) basis up to September 1990 is 2 million three hundred fifty two thousand sixty five pesos and four centavos (sic). (P2,352,065.04). You will note again that the average return of investment of any Cavite based (sic) Rural Bank has been no less than 20% or about 30% per annum. And we computed only the earnings at 12%. xxxx There were loans granted fraudulently to members of the board and some borrowers which were not all charged interest for several years and on this basis we computed a 40% shares (sic) on the foregone income interest income (sic) on all these fraudulently granted loans, without interest being collected and none a project (sic) among a plantation project (sic), which was funded by the bank but nothing was given back to the bank for several hundred thousand of pesos (sic). And we arrived an (sic)

estimate of the foregone interest income a total of One Million Two Hundred Five Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty None Pesos and eighty one (sic) centavos and 40 percent share of this (sic) would be Four Hundred Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred Forty Seven Pesos and Ninety Two Centavos. All in all our estimate of the damages we have suffered is Four Million Six Hundred one (sic) Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Five Pesos and thirty eight (sic) centavos (P4,601,765.38).19 More importantly, petitioners never raised in issue before the CA this award of actual compensatory damages. They did not raise the matter of damages in their Appellants Brief, while in their Motion for Reconsideration, they questioned only the award of moral and exemplary damages, not the award of actual damages. Even in the present Petition for Review, what petitioners raised was the propriety of the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. On the grant of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees, we note that the trial courts Decision did not discuss the basis for the award. No mention of these damages awarded or their factual basis is made in the body of the Decision, only in the dispositive portion. Be that as it may, we have examined the records of the case and found that the award must be sustained. It should be remembered that there are two separate causes of action in this case: one for rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement and the other for receivership based on alleged mismanagement of the company by the plaintiffs. While the award of actual compensatory damages was based on the breach of duty under the Memorandum of Agreement, the award of moral damages appears to be based on petitioners mismanagement of the company when they became members of the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank. Thus, the trial court said: Under the Rural Banks management, a systematic diversion of the banks assets was conceived whereby: (a) The Rural Banks funds would be funneled in the development and improvements of the Benitez Mango Plantation in the guise of an investment in said plantation; (b) Of the net profits earned from the plantations operations, the Rural Banks share therein, although it shoulders all of the financial risks, would be a measly twenty percent (20%) thereof while UCI, without investing a single centavo, would earn eighty percent (80%) of the said profits. Thus, the bulk of the profits of the mango plantation was also sought to be diverted to an entity wherein Helena Z. Benitez and Conrado L. Benitez II are not only principal stockholders but also the Chairman of the Board of Directors and President, respectively. Moreover, Defendant Helena Z. Benitez would be entitled to receive, under the lease contract, rentals in the total amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) or ten percent (10%) of gross profits, whichever is higher. (c) Finally, at the end of the lease period, the Rural Bank was obliged to turn over to the lessor (Helena Z. Benitez) all permanent improvements introduced by it on the plantation at no cost to Ms. Benitez. Further, in its report dated March 13, 1985, the [Central Bank] after conducting its general examination upon the Rural Bank ordered the latter to "explain satisfactorily why the bank engage (sic) in an undertaking not inherently connected with [bona fide] rural banking operations nor within the allowed allied undertakings," contrary to the provisions of Section 3379 of the CB Manual of Regulations and Section 26 of CB Circular No. 741, otherwise known as the "Circular on Rural Banks[.]" The aforestated CB report states that "total exposure to this project now amounts to P475,371.57 or 25.76% of its capital and surplus*.+" Notwithstanding a finding by the CB of the undertakings illegality, the defendants nevertheless persisted in pursuing the Mango Plantation Project and never acceded to the call of [the] CB for it to desist from further implementing the said project. It was only after another letter from the CB was received when defendant finally shelved the mango plantation project. The result of the aforestated report, as well as the actuations of the Defendants in not yielding to the order of the CB, adequately establishes not only a violation of CB Rules (specifically Section 26, Circular 741 and Section 3379 of the CB Manual of Regulations, but also, that it has caused undue damage both to the Rural bank as well as its stockholders. The initial CB report should have sufficiently apprised Defendants of the illegality of the undertaking. Defendants, therefore have the duty to terminate the Mango Plantation Project. They, however, [chose] to continue it, apparently to further their [own] interest in the scheme for their own personal benefit and gain, an act which is clearly contrary to the fiduciary nature of their relationship with the corporation in which they are officers. Such persistence proves evident bad faith, or a breach of a known duty through some motive or ill-will, which resulted in the further dissipation and wastage of the Rural Banks assets, unjustly depriving Plaintiffs of their fair share in the assets of the bank. All the foregoing satisfactorily affirms the allegations of Plaintiffs to the effect that these contracts were but part of a device employed by Defendants to siphon [off] the Rural bank for their personal gain.20 Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of precise pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission.21 Article 2220 of the Civil Code further provides that moral damages may be recovered in case of a breach of contract where the defendant acted in bad faith.22 To award moral damages, a court must be satisfied with proof of the following requisites: (1) an injury whether physical, mental, or psychological clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful

act or omission of the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219.231avvphi1 Accordingly, based upon the findings of the trial court, it is clear that respondents are entitled to moral damages. The acts attributed to the petitioners as directors of the Rural Bank manifestly prejudiced the respondents causing detriment to their standing as directors and stockholders of the Rural Bank. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right.24 While these need not be proved, respondents must show that they are entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of awarding exemplary damages.25 We find that respondents are indeed entitled to moral damages; thus, the award for exemplary damages is in order. Anent the award for attorneys fees, Article 2208 of the Civil Code states: In the absence of stipulation, attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded. Hence, the award of exemplary damages is in itself sufficient justification for the award of attorneys fees.26 WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 54226 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED