TodayisFriday,October28,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.157075July17,2006
RAMCAR,INCORPORATED,petitioner,
vs.
HIPOWERMARKETING,LEONIDASD.BOHOL,andRHODORAA.BOHOL,respondents.
DECISION
TINGA,J.:
BeforetheCourtisaPetitionforCertiorarifiledbyRamcar,Incorporated(Ramcar),raisingthesamequestionsof
factpasseduponbyboththelowercourt1andtheCourtofAppeals.
Theantecedentsareasfollows:
RespondentLeonidasBohol(Bohol)isadistributorofRamcarproductsinQuezonCityandSanPabloCityusing
thebusinessnameHiPowerMarketing.
On 4 March 1982, Ramcar and Bohol entered into a loan agreement whereby Ramcar allotted P300,000.00 as a
tradecreditlineforthebatteriestobedistributedbyBohol,andreleasedanotherP300,000.00asastraightloanto
thelatter.2Tosecurethepaymentoftheloan,BoholexecutedaRealEstateMortgage3overaparceloflandandits
improvementscoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.285976.4Boholalsosignedanundatedpromissory
note5stipulatingthescheduleofpaymentsandthebreakdownoftheprincipalamountandtheinteresttobepaid.
Subsequently,onthepremisethatBoholhaddefaultedonhisloan,RamcarpetitionedthesheriffofQuezonCityto
foreclosethemortgagetosatisfyanindebtednessofP370,429.42plusinterest.Theauctionsalewasseton6July
1984.6
On3July1984,Boholandhiswife(spousesBohol)filedaPetitionforProhibitionwithPreliminaryInjunctionbefore
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 101, docketed as Special Civil Action No. Q42032, to
prevent the sheriff from conducting the auction sale. The RTC issued astatusquo order on 4 July 1984, thereby
temporarilyavertingthescheduledsale.7
After trial, finding that Bohol had defaulted in the performance of his obligation, the RTC rendered its decision
dismissing the petition for prohibition. The spouses Bohol filed a Motion for Reconsideration and For New Trial8
whichwasdeniedbytheRTCon4November1985.9TheythenappealedtotheCourtofAppeals(CA),withthe
appealdocketedasCAG.R.CVNo.11496.
WhilethecasewaspendingbeforetheCA,RamcarrequestedtheOfficeoftheSheriffofQuezonCitytoproceed
withtheimplementationoftheextrajudicialforeclosureinviewofthedismissalofthepetitionforprohibitionofthe
spousesBohol.Anoticeofsheriff'ssalewasissuedandpublishedforthreeconsecutiveweeksinanewspaperof
generalcirculation.
On28November1985,orthedaybeforethescheduledauctionsale,thespousesBoholandHiPowerMarketing
filedacaseagainstRamcarbeforetheRTC,docketedasCivilCaseNo.Q46683,prayingthattheirobligationbe
declaredextinguishedandtheirpropertyreleasedfromthemortgageonthegroundthattheyhavealreadyoverpaid
theiraccount.10
Nonetheless, the auction sale pushed through on 29 November 1985, with Ramcar emerging as the highest
bidder.11Aftertheperiodtoredeemthepropertyhadexpired,Ramcarcausedthetransferofthecertificateoftitleto
itsname.Thus,on11February1987,TCTNo.354635wasissuedinfavorofRamcarinplaceoftheoldcertificate

oftitleinthenameofBohol.12 On 4 May 1987, Ramcar filed a Petition for a Writ of Possession with the RTC of
QuezonCity,docketedasLRCCaseNo.Q3696.13
Almostoneyearlater,thedecisionontheappealbythespousesBoholinCAG.R.CVNo.11496waspromulgated
on8March1988.TheCAdeclaredthatthemainissuetobethreshedoutwaswhethertherewasindeeddefaultin
paymentonthepartofthespousesBohol.14Thisissuewasnotthoroughlypasseduponbythetrialcourt.Thus,the
CAfoundtheneedtoremandthecaseforfurtherhearingonthequestionofdefault.Itheld:
Sincedefaultwastheprincipalgroundrelieduponfortheforeclosureofmortgage,RAMCARwascalledupon
toproveitanditwasabsolutelynecessarytomakeafindingthattherewasinfactadefault.Whiletheparties
optedtosubmitthecaseuponpositionpapers,thelatterunfortunatelydidnotprovideanyclarification.Onthe
contrary,thepartiespresentedpositionsseriouslyatoddswitheachother,andtheissueremainedasmurky
as it was before the submission of the papers. RAMCAR's brief is not of any assistance either it merely
reiteratestheamountstatedinitsapplicationforforeclosureandcontainsnoexplanationoftheissues.
There was therefore urgent need to receive evidence, from the Bohols, that they might prove their claim of
overpayment, from RAMCAR, that it might establish not only the fact of default but also the particular loan
availmentitsoughttosatisfywiththeabortedforeclosure.Thedecisionwasclearlypremature.15
AsbothCivilCaseNo.Q46683(verifiedcomplaintfortheextinguishmentofBohol'sobligation)andLRCCaseNo.
Q3697 (for exparte issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Ramcar) were pending at the time Special Civil
ActionNo.Q42032wasorderedremandedtothetrialcourt,andtherebeinginterrelatedissues,thethreecases
wereconsolidatedbeforeRTCBranch101,QuezonCity.16
Aftertrialandreceptionoftheparties'respectiveevidence,theRTCinaDecision17dated19January1999ruledin
favor of Ramcar, finding that Bohol had an outstanding unpaid obligation in the amount of P370,959.62. It also
declaredtheextrajudicialforeclosurevalidandconsequentlyaffirmedthevalidityofthetransferofBohol'sproperty
toRamcar.18
BoholwentuptotheCAwiththeappealdocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.52593.TheCAreversedtheRTCdecision,
declaredtheobligationofthespousesBoholtoRamcarextinguishedbypayment,andtheextrajudicialforeclosure
oftherealestatemortgagenullandvoid.Theappellatecourtalsosetasidethewritofpossessionissuedinfavorof
Ramcar,cancelledthelatter'sTCTNo.354635,andreinstatedBohol'sTCTNo.285976.TheCAruled:
The pivotal question in these cases is whether the Bohols were in default in the payment of their loan
obligationtoRamcaratthetimeRamcarforeclosedthemortgageontheBohol['s]property.xxx
xxxx
Fromcomparisonofthetwosetsofcomputations,itappearstheBoholshadpaidtoRamcarmorethanthe
amount that Ramcar is seeking to collect from them. The reason for this is that the Bohols had shown
paymentsanddeliveriesthatwerenottakenintoconsiderationbyRamcarwhenitcomputedtheaccountof
theBohols.RamcarfailedtoprovethattheamountspaidbytheBohols,asreflectedbytheExhibitsCtoG,
were already credited to them in the statement of account Exhibit 18, which in turn was the basis for the
extrajudicial foreclosure. Resultantly, the Bohols had overpaid the mortgaged obligation and may not,
therefore, be considered in default. The extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings instituted against them lacks
legalbasisanditsconsequencesmustberectifiedaccordinglyintheinterestofjustice.19
Ramcar filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated 22 November
2002.20
On21February2003,RamcarfiledthisPetitionforCertiorariagainstthespousesBoholandHiPowerMarketing
alleging that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion: (1) in refusing to consider the evidence of Ramcar
showing that Bohol still has an outstanding balance on his loan and (2) in reversing the final order of the RTC
grantingthewritofpossessioninfavorofRamcar.
RamcarcontendsthatBohol,bymeansofdoublecreditingandwrongposting,madeitappearthathehasalready
fully paid the obligation. Ramcar also questions the nullification of the extrajudicial sale, contending that the legal
requirementswereobservedbythesheriffinproceedingwiththesale.
ThespousesBohol,intheirComment,21assertthattheinstantpetitionisnottheproperremedyastheCAdidnot
commitgraveabuseofdiscretioninrenderingtheassailedDecision.TheyalsorefutetheallegationofRamcarthat
theyhavenotfullypaidtheloanedamount.Afteralengthydiscussionofthefactsofthecaseandthecomputations
madebytheCA,theypositthatthedocumentsonrecordclearlyshowthattheyhavealreadyfulfilledtheirobligation

toRamcar.Further,theysubmitthatthedocumentswhichRamcarattachedtoitspetitionhavenotbeenpresented
beforetheRTC,areutterlyselfserving,andshouldnotbeaccordedanyprobativevalue.
Ultimately,theissuetobedecidedinthiscaseiswhetherBoholhasalreadysatisfiedhisobligationtoRamcarinfull.
The present petition must be dismissed for failure of Ramcar to prove that the CA committed grave abuse of
discretion. A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.Thewritcannotbeusedforanyotherpurposeasitsfunction
islimitedtokeepingtheinferiorcourtswithintheboundsofitsjurisdiction.22
Inthiscase,althoughRamcarallegedinitsPetitionthattheCAcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretion,itdidnotin
any manner show how the appellate court committed such abuse. It is an empty allegation bereft of any
substantiation.
Theoriginalactionforcertiorarimaybedirectedagainstaninterlocutoryorderofthecourtpriortoappealfromthe
judgmentorwherethereisnoappealoranyotherplain,speedyoradequateremedy.23Therewasaplain,speedy
oradequateremedyavailabletoRamcar.ItcouldandshouldhavefiledanappealassailingtheDecisionoftheCA.
ItisworthmentioningthatRamcarreceivedtheResolutionoftheCAdenyingitsMotionforReconsiderationon23
December2002.24RamcarfileditsPetitionforCertiorarion21February2003orsixty(60)daysafterreceiptofthe
Resolution.SinceRamcarfailedtoappealwithinfifteen(15)daysfromitsreceiptoftheResolution,thedecisionof
theCAhadbecomefinalandexecutory.Itiswellsettledthatthefilingofthepetitionforcertioraricannotserveasa
substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.25 Where the issue or question involves or affects the wisdom or legal
soundness of the decisionnot the jurisdiction of the court to render said decisionthe same is beyond the
provinceofapetitionforcertiorari.26
The fact that this Petition for Certiorari raises questions of fact further militates against it. In Day v. RTC of
ZamboangaCity,Br.XIII,27theCourtheldthatinanoriginalactionforcertiorari,questionsoffactcannotberaised
muchlesspasseduponbytherespondentcourt.Onlyestablishedoradmittedfactscanbeconsidered.28
Inanycase,evenifwedispensewiththetechnicalitiesandreevaluatethequestionsoffactraisedbyRamcarasan
exception29 to the general rule that such questions cannot be reviewed by this Court, the petition should still be
dismissed.
TheCA,inrulingforthespousesBohol,heldthat:
The Bohols on the other hand, sought to establish overpayment with figures contained in: (1) their
summaries,ExhibitC,D,EofdeliveriesofwoodencratestoRamcarwithsupportingdeliveryreceipts,(2)list
ofcreditmemos,ExhibitF,issuedbyRamcartoBoholshowingdiscountsandpriceadjustmentsgiventothe
Bohols, with supporting credit memos and (3) cash payments, Exhibit G., with official receipts showing
remittancestoRamcar.InthehearingonAugust11,1995,asappearingonpage17ofthetranscript,thetrial
courtdirectedthepetitionerstounderlinetheentriesintheirrecordsofpaymentsanddeliverieswhichwere
notcreditedtothembyRamcar.Incompliance,theymadeundeliningsinExhibitC,D,E,FandG.Theyalso
presentedtwomorestatements,ExhibitHandI,whichweresupposedtoreflectadditionalcreditmemosand
paymentstoRamcar,butbecausethesewerenotsupportedbyevidence,unlikethepreviousstatements,we
chosetoignorethem.xxxx30
ItissignificanttonotethattheCAcloselyanalyzedanddiscussedthemeritsofthecase,takingintoconsideration
the alleged double crediting and wrong posting of Bohol. It concluded, after weighing the respective evidence
adducedbytheparties,thatBoholhasfullysatisfiedhisobligationtoRamcar.Infact,accordingtotheCA,Bohol
evenmadeexcesspaymentstoRamcar.TheCAextensivelycomputedthestatementsofaccountandthereceipts
presentedandfoundthatBoholshouldprevailinthepresentdispute.
Incontrast,thetrialcourt'sdecisionisbereftofanymeaningfulevaluationoftheevidencechoosinginsteadmerely
toreplicatetheallegationsofthevariouspartiesparticularlythecalculationsofferedbyRamcar.
Itshouldalsobestressedthatintheinstantpetition,Ramcarneitherdeniedtheveracityofthereceiptsandcredit
memos Bohol presented to the lower court nor effectively repudiated these documents. Ramcar merely claims
wrong posting on the part of Bohol in arriving at a conclusion of overpayment. While Ramcar questions the CA's
finding of overpayment by Bohol, it did not focus its petition on this issue but gave a protracted and irrelevant
discussionregardingtheredemptionofamortgagedproperty.
Ramcar also presented to this Court annexes "F", "G" and "H" showing the breakdown of purchases Bohol had
made from January 1982 to August 1983, the alleged payments made by Bohol from February 1982 to October
1983,andthecreditmemosissuedbyRamcarthruoffsettingfromFebruary1982toFebruary1984,respectively.

ThesedocumentstendtoprovethatBoholstillhasanoutstandingbalance.However,ascorrectlypointedoutby
Bohol,theannexeswerenotpresentedbeforetheRTCinRamcar'sFormalOfferofEvidence31
andthepersonwhopreparedthedocumentsdidnotauthenticatethedocumentsincourt.TheCourtcannoteven
determinetheidentityofthepersonwhopreparedthedocumentsasonlythesignaturewasaffixedtothelowerright
handcornerofeachpageofthedocuments.
Ourruleonevidenceprovidestheprocedureonhowtopresentdocumentaryevidencebeforethecourt,asfollows:
firstly,thedocumentsshouldbeauthenticatedandprovedinthemannerprovidedintherulesofcourtsecondly,the
documentsshouldbeidentifiedandmarkedandthirdly,itshouldbeformallyofferedtothecourtandshowntothe
opposingpartysothatthelattermayhavetheopportunitytoobjectthereto.32
WehavecarefullyexaminedthedocumentaryevidencepresentedbythepartiesintheRTCandtheCAandfound
thatthedocumentsnowbeingpresentedbyRamcar,i.e.thepurchasesofHiPowerMarketing,paymentsofbattery
account, and credit memos issued by Ramcar applied to HiPower Market thru offsetting were not part of the
recordsinthelowercourtortheappellatecourt.TheyweresubmittedforthefirsttimetothisCourt.Thisbeingthe
case,weshallnottakethemintoaccount.
Inviewoftheforegoing,wefindthattheCourtofAppealscommittedneithergraveabuseofdiscretionnoranyerror
injudgmentinrenderingtheassailedDecision.
WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisherebyDISMISSED.TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdated28June2002
isherebyAFFIRMED.Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.
Quisumbing,Chairperson,Carpio,CarpioMorales,Velasco,Jr.,J.J.,concur.

Footnotes
1RegionalTrialCourt,Branch101,QuezonCity.
2Rollo,pp.4350.
3Id.at5256.
4Id.at5758.
5Id.at5960.
6SeeCADecisionofCAG.R.CVNo.11496entitled,"LeonidasD.Bohol,etal.v.Ramcar,Inc.,etal.

Records,Vol.1,pp.130134.
7Id.at36.
8Id.at115117.
9Id.at123.
10Records,Vol.2,pp.4448.
11Rollo,p.32.SeealsoMinutesofAuctionSaleandSheriff'sCertificateofSale,RTCRecords,Vol.I,pp.

527528.
12Rollo,p.87.
13Records,Vol.II,pp.46.
14Records,Vol.I,pp.130134.
15Id.at133.

16TheOrderdated15August1990consolidatingCivilCaseNo.Q46683,LRCCaseNo.Q3696and

SpecialCivilActionNo.Q42032states:
"Actingof(sic)theMotionto[C]onsolidatecasesfiledbythecontendingpartiesthrutheirrespective
counsels,thecourtfindingthecontentsthereinstatedtobewellfounded,
WHEREFORE,lettheabovecaptionedcasesbeforwardedtoBrach101,thisCourt,forconsolidation
withCaseNo.Q42032providedtheHonorablePresidingJudgethereatinterposesnoserious
objectiontotheconsolidation."Records,Vol.II.p.110.
TheOrderdated12December1990states:
"FindingtheConsolidationofCasesjustified,letthecasefromthesalaofJudgeMacliingbenow
consolidatedwithCCNo.42032assignedtothiscourt.
"Records,Vol.I.p.135.
17Id.at592597.
18Thedispositiveportionreads:

WHEREFORE,premisesaboveconsidered,theCourtherebyfindsthatLeonidasBohol,etal.,havean
unpaidobligationofP370,429.48asofMay31,1984(CivilCaseNo.Q42032)andbyvirtuethereof,
theCourtherebydeclaresVALIDtheextrajudicialforeclosurebyRamcarofBohol'sRealEstate
MortgageLoanAgreementdatedMarch4,1982(LRCNo.Q3696(87).Consequently,theacts
emanatingtherefromarelikewisedeclaredVALID,namelythe[t]ransferofBohol'sTCT[No.]285976to
Ramcar'sTCT[No.]354635whichwasalreadyimplementedupondismissalofSPNo.Q42032inthe
decisionofrelatedLRCCaseNo.Q3696(87)onAugust27,1985.
Further,inviewoftheforegoing,letawritofpossessionissueinfavorofRamcar.
SOORDERED.
19Rollo,pp.33and37.
20Id.at4142.
21Rollo,pp.183256.
22MadrigalTransport,Inc.v.LapandayHoldingsCorporation,G.R.No.156067,11August2004,436SCRA

123,133.
23Atty.Paav.CourtofAppeals,347Phil.122,136(1997)citingRegalado,RemedialLawCompendium543

544(6thed.1997).
24Rollo,p.5.
25A.F.SanchezBrokerage,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.147079,21December2004,447SCRA427,

436.
26IdcitingLandBankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,409SCRA455,482(2003).
27G.R.No.79119,22November1990,191SCRA610,619.
28IdcitingRubiov.Reyes,etal.,L24581,27May1968.
29InSarmientov.CA,353Phil.834,846(1998)citingBautistav.MangaldanRuralBank,230SCRA16

(1994),theCourtenumeratedtheexceptionsasfollows:(1)xxxtheconclusionisafindinggroundedentirely
onspeculation,surmiseandconjecture(2)theinferencemadeismanifestlymistaken(3)thereisgrave
abuseofdiscretion(4)thejudgmentisbasedonmisapprehensionoffacts(5)thefindingsoffactare
conflicting(6)theCourtofAppealswentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseanditsfindingsarecontrarytothe
admissionsofbothappellantandappellees(7)thefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsarecontraryto
thoseofthetrialcourt(8)saidfindingsoffactareconclusionswithoutcitationofspecificevidenceonwhich
therearebased(9)thefactssetforthinthepetitionaswellasinthepetitioner'smainandreplybriefsarenot
disputedbytherespondentsand(10)thefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsarepremisedonthe
supposedabsenceofevidenceandcontradictedbytheevidenceonrecord.

30Rollo,p.36.
31Records,Vol.1,pp.354454,includingexhibits.
32Chuav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.88383,19February1992,206SCRA339,345.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation