Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
CALIFORNIA CLOTHING, INC. and MICHELLE S.
YBAEZ, petitioners, vs. SHIRLEY G. QUIONES,
respondent.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
421
422
PERALTA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Court of Appeals
Decision1 dated August 3, 2006 and Resolution2 dated
November 14, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 80309. The assailed
decision reversed and set aside the June 20, 2003 Decision
3
of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City (RTC), Branch
58, in Civil Case No. CEB-26984; while the assailed
resolution denied the motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioner Michelle Ybaez (Ybaez).
The facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as
fol-lows:
On July 25, 2001, respondent Shirley G. Quiones, a
Res-ervation Ticketing Agent of Cebu Pacific Air in Lapu
Lapu City, went inside the Guess USA Boutique at the
second floor of Robinsons Department Store (Robinsons) in
Cebu City. She fitted four items: two jeans, a blouse and a
shorts, then decided to purchase the black jeans worth
P2,098.00.4 Respondent allegedly paid to the cashier
evidenced by a receipt5 issued by the store.6 While she was
walking through the sky-walk connecting Robinsons and
Mercury Drug Store (Mer-cury) where she was heading
next, a Guess employee ap-proached and informed her that
she failed to pay the item she got. She, however, insisted
that she paid and showed the
_______________
1Penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon, with Associate Justices
Isaias P. Dicdican and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring; Rollo, pp.
52-62.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon, with Associate Justices
Isaias P. Dicdican and Pampio A. Abarintos, concurring; Rollo, pp. 70-71.
3 Penned by Presiding Judge Gabriel T. Ingles; Rollo, pp. 40-51.
4 Rollo, pp. 52-53.
5 Records, p. 8.
6Id., at p. 2.
423
_______________
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id., at p. 3.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id., at p. 4.
14 Id., at p. 5.
15 Id., at pp. 1-7.
424
_______________
16 Id., at p. 5.
17 Id., at pp. 38-46.
18 Id., at pp. 41-42.
19 Id., at p. 42.
20 Id., at p. 43.
21 Id.
22 Id., at pp. 43-44.
425
_______________
23 Rollo, pp. 49-51.
24 Id., at p. 61. (Italics and emphasis in the original)
426
_______________
25 Id., at p. 56.
26Id., at p. 57.
27 Id., at p. 58.
28 Id., at p. 61.
29 CA Rollo, pp. 84-90.
427
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
FINDING THAT THE LETTER SENT TO THE CEBU
PACIFIC OFFICE WAS MADE TO SUBJECT HEREIN
RESPONDENT TO RIDICULE, HUMILIATION AND
SIMILAR INJURY.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AWARDING MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS
FEES.30
_______________
30 Rollo, p. 14.
31 481 Phil. 352; 438 SCRA 38 (2004).
428
_______________
32 Carpio v. Valmonte, supra, at pp. 361-362; pp. 46-47.
33 Dart Philippines, Inc. v. Calogcog, G.R. No. 149241, August 24, 2009,
596 SCRA 614, 624; Carpio v. Valmonte, supra note 31, at p. 362; p. 47.
34 Villanueva v. Rosqueta, G.R. No. 180764, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA
334, 339.
429
_______________
35 Dart Philippines, Inc. v. Calogcog, supra note 33.
36 Gonzales v. Philippine Commercial and International Bank, G.R. No.
180257, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 180, 202.
430
When I asked her about to whom she gave the money, she
gave out a blank expression and told me, I cant re-
member. Then I asked her how much money she gave, she
answered, P2,100; 2 pcs 1,000 and 1 pc 100 bill. Then I
told her that that would (sic) impossible since we have no
such denomination in our cash fund at that mo-ment.
Finally, I asked her if how much change and if she received
change from the cashier, she then answered, I dont
remember. After asking these simple questions, I am
very certain that she is not completely being honest
about this. In fact, we invited [her] to come to our boutique
to clear these matters but she vehemently refused saying
that shes in a hurry and very busy.37
_______________
37 Rollo, p. 59. (Emphasis and italics in the original)
431
_______________
38 Uypitching v. Quiamco, G.R. No. 146322, December 6, 2006, 510
SCRA 172, 179.
39 Dart Philippines, Inc. v. Calogcog, supra note 33; id.
40 Carpio v. Valmonte, supra note 31, at p. 362; p. 47.
41 Id., at p. 364; p. 49.
42 Villanueva v. Rosqueta, supra note 34, at p. 341.
43 Carpio v. Valmonte, supra note 31, at p. 365; p. 50.
432