TITLE OF THE CASE: FELIMON MANGUIOB, Petitioner, vs JUDGE PAUL T.

ARCANGEL, RTC,
BRANCH 12, DAVAO CITY and ALEJANDRA VELASCO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 152262

DATE OF PROMULGATION: February 15, 2012

PONENTE: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
NATURE OF THE CASE: Petition for Review on Certiorari

CASE BRIEF: This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to modify the August 31, 2001 Decision and
January 25, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 64147, which affirmed with
modification the March 5, 1999 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 12 in Civil
Case No. 23,313-94.

ACTIONS IN THE LOWER COURTS:

SC: Affirmed with Modification
₱400,000.00 Velasco’s capital contribution
+ ₱115,199.92 Velasco’s 60% share in the net income
- ₱116,954.40 the proceeds of the sales of copra on September 10, 1994,
which Velasco retained
= ₱398,245.52 Amount due Velasco
CA: Affirmed with Modification
₱401,640.97
+6% per annum computed from the time the Court a quo’s Decision and,
+12% per annum from the time of the finality of this Decision

RTC (Davao City): Manguiob to Pay Velasco:

₱498,245.52 as the principal account;
+ 12% interest per annum from Sep. 15, 1994 until the fully paid
+ ₱25,000.00 as attorney’s fees
DOCTRINE LAID DOWN (if any):

FACTS:

Velasco and Manguiob established a Partnership. Velasco dissolved the partnership. On December 12, 1994,
Velasco filed a Complaint for Sum of Money, Accounting, and Damages against Manguiob.

The RTC ordered Manguiob to pay Velasco. On appeal, the CA affirmed with Modification the ruling of RTC.
Manguiob elevated the case to the SC. Manguiob says he does not wish to further challenge the Court of Appeals
computation, but asks that the value of the non-cash assets, as determined by the parties’ accountants, pursuant
to the RTCs orders, be deducted from the amount he is obligated to return to Velasco.

ISSUE/S OF THE CASE: WON the value of the non-cash assets will affect the determination of how much
Manguiob should return to Velasco.

HELD: No.

RATIO/REASON: Under Rule 45 it requires that the petition shall raise only questions of law which must
be distinctly set forth.

Here, the issue raised by Manguiob is clearly a question of fact, which not only requires a review of the
evidence already presented, but a reception of new evidence as well.
It is settled that issues not raised timely in the proceedings before the trial court cannot be considered on
review or appeal as to do so would be to trample on the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.

SUPREME COURT RULING: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 64147
is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner is obliged to pay private respondent the amount
of ₱398,245.52 representing the balance of the latters capital contribution plus her 60% share in the net profits of
Baculin Enterprises.