Nessia vs. Fermin 220 SCRA 615 GR. NO.

102918 March 30, 1993

PARTIES: PETITIONER: Jose V. Nessia RESPONDENTS: Jesus M. Fermin and Municipality of Victorias, Negros Occidental PONENTE: Bellosillo, J.

FACTS:

Jose Nessia complained about Mr. Fermin's negligence and non-payment of the former's vouchers to reimburse his travel expense allowances incurred from doing his official duty as a deputy municipal assessor of Victorias. The respondent countered that he did not approve Nessia's claims because he exceeded the budget. The Municipality of Victorias supported Fermin and added that the petitioner didn't give an explanation why he exceeded the budget.

The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner because it found in the evidence that Fermin refused to act on his vouchers through his inaction over the petitioner's follow-up letters inquiring the status of the reimbursement. The court granted the compensation to Nessia, although it was less than what he prayed for. Both parties elevated the case to the C.A. Nessia prayed for an increase in the damages awarded to him and Fermin sought release from liability. The Municipality of Victorias did not appeal.

The appellate court dismissed Nessia's complaint on the ground of lack of cause. From its own findings, the C.A. held that the real issue is that Nessia accused Fermin of failure to act on the vouchers, which were not proved to be received by the latter. Even if he was able to receive them, they could not be approved because they were late and not supported by an appropriation.

The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

Whether respondent court may reverse the decision of the trial court which has become final and executory.

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court was inclined to sustain the trial court because its appraisal of conflicting testimonies is afforded greater weight and respect. Thus, the determination of the trial court that they were actually received should be followed.

Between the findings of the CA, which were simply drawn from reviewing the records and transcripts of the hearing, the determination of the trial court deserves greater acceptance because it actually heard the case, even if both conclusions are supported by evidence. Moreover, Philippine jurisprudence substantially provides that "If the decision of the Court of Appeals on the controversial matter suffers... from some ambiguity, the doubt should be resolved to sustain the trial court in the light of the familiar accepted rule that 'the judge who tries a case in the court below, has vastly superior advantage for the ascertainment of truth and the detection of falsehood over an appellate court sitting as a court of review" (Roque v. Buan, G.R. No. L-22459, 1967).

The Supreme Court granted Nessias petition, set aside the CAs dismissal of the petitioners motion for reconsideration, and reinstated and affirmed the RTCs decision.