Petition DENIED.
another action by Cristeta Castillo for herself and as guardian of Cornelio
But damages are decreased because CA unilaterally increased it without
motion from R.
Not to disturb consistent findings of TC and CA on liability of P.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 114841-42 August 23, 1995
ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA,
INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CARLITO D. CASTILLO, HEIRS OF
CRISTETA CASTILLO and CORNELIO CASTILLO,respondents.
REGALADO, J.:
Assailed in this appeal by certiorari is the judgment 1 of respondent appellate
court rendered in CA-G.R CV Nos. 29976-77, which affirmed with
modifications the judgment of the trial court by increasing the award of
damages to herein private respondents. While the increased awards could
arguably have been justified, it was the inaction of private respondents that
now militate against the same.
Sometime in 1982, petitioner company commenced the construction of a
steel fabrication plant in the Municipality of Bauan, Batangas, necessitating
dredging operations at the Batangas Bay in an area adjacent to the real
property of private respondents.
As an offshoot of said dredging operations, an action for damages against
herein petitioner Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. was filed
by Carlito D. Castillo which was docketed as Civil Case No. 10276, and
Castillo, docketed as Civil Case No. 10696.
On August 19, 1985, the above-mentioned cases were consolidated, as the
plaintiffs therein intended to present common evidence against
defendant, 2 by reason of the virtual identity of the issues involved in both
cases.
Private respondents alleged that during the on-going construction of its steel
and fabrication yard, petitioner's personnel and heavy equipment trespassed
into the adjacent parcels of land belonging to private respondents without
their consent. These heavy equipment damaged big portions of private
respondents' property which were further used by petitioner as a depot or
parking lots without paying any rent therefor, nor does it appear from the
records that such use of their land was with the former's conformity.
Private respondents further alleged that as a result of the dredging operation
of petitioner company, the sea silt and water overflowed and were deposited
upon their land. Consequently, the said property which used to be
agricultural lands principally devoted to rice production and each averaging
an annual net harvest of 75 cavans, could no longer be planted with palay as
the soil became infertile, salty, unproductive and unsuitable for agriculture. 3
Petitioner company denied all the allegations of private respondents and
contended that its personnel and equipment had neither intruded upon nor
occupied any portion of private respondents' landholdings. The alleged sea
silt with water, according to petitioner was due to the flood brought by the
heavy rains when typhoon "Ruping" hit and lashed the province of Batangas
in 1982. 4
On September 6, 1990, the trial court promulgated its decision with this fallo:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant:
1) To pay Carlito Castillo the sum of P65,240.00 plus legal interest
from the time of the filing of his complaint;
2) To pay the heirs of Cristeta Castillo the sum of P32,630.00 plus
legal interest from the time of the filing of her complaint;
 3) To pay Cornelio Castillo the sum of P47,490.00 with legal interest
from the time of the filing of his complaint;
4) To pay plaintiffs the sum of P10,000.00 each as exemplary
damages;
5) To pay plaintiffs the sum of P10,000.00 each as attorney's fees;
6) To pay the costs of suit. 5
Dissatisfied with said judgment, petitioner company appealed to the Court of
Appeals. On March 29, 1994, respondent court affirmed the judgment of the
trial court with the following modifications:
Ordering defendant-appellant to pay:
1. Carlito Castillo the following amounts:
a) Compensatory damages in the
amount of P56,290.00 with legal
interest from the time of the finality
of this decision until the same shall
have been fully paid;
b) Exemplary damages in the
amount of P10,000.00;
c) Attorney's fees of P10,000.00;
and
d) Costs of this suit.
2. Cornelio Castillo the following sums:
a) Compensatory damages in the
amount of P255,401.25 with legal
interest from the time of the finality
of this decision up to the time the
amount is fully paid;
b) Exemplary damages of
P10,000.00;
c) Attorney's fees of P10,000.00;
and
d) Costs of this suit;
3. Cristeta Castillo the following amount(s):
a) Compensatory damages of
P249,815.62 with legal interest from
the time this decision becomes final
until the amount is fully paid;
b) Exemplary damages of
P10,000.00;
c) Attorney's fees of P10,000.00;
and
d) Costs of suit. 6
Petitioner company is now before us, arguing for nullification or, at least,
partial modification of respondent court's judgment on the bases of the
following assignment of errors:
I
That the respondent Honorable Court of Appeals exercised its
judicial power and discretion in a most arbitrary, capricious and
whimsical manner by awarding against the petitioner,
unconscionable, unreasonable and excessive damages clearly not
warranted under Articles 20 and 2176 of the Civil Code.
II
That grave and patent abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial
power constitute a ground for the issuance of the writ
of certiorari . . .
 III Respondent appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it modified the
judgment of the trial court by increasing the award of damages in favor of
That the respondent Honorable Court of Appeals violated Article private respondents who, in the first place, did not interpose an appeal
2177 of the Civil Code which states that: "the plaintiff cannot therefrom. This being the case, they are presumed to be satisfied with the
recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the adjudication made by the lower court. As to them, the judgment of the court
defendant" when it condemned the petitioner as a result of its below may be said to have attained finality.
dredging operations, to pay private respondents not only the
expected total amount of profits the latter would have derived from The entrenched procedural rule in this jurisdiction is that a party who has not
the expected sale of their palay harvest for 135 months or over 11 himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief
years, from the half hectare agricultural land, but also rentals on the other than those granted in the decision of the lower court. The appellee can
basis of P5.00 per square meter of their said entire landholdings. 7 only advance any argument that he may deem necessary to defeat the
appellant's claim or to uphold the decision that is being disputed. He can
The evidence on record indubitably support the findings of the trial and assign errors on appeal if such are required to strengthen the views expressed
appellate courts that petitioner company is liable for the destruction of the by the court a quo. Such assigned errors, in turn, may be considered by the
property of herein private respondents and consequently entitle the latter to appellate court solely to maintain the appealed decision on other grounds, but
an award of the damages prayed for. Such conclusions and findings of fact not for the purpose of modifying the judgment in the appellee's favor and
by the lower courts are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be giving him other affirmative reliefs. 11
disturbed except for strong and cogent reasons, none of which, however,
obtain in the case at bar. The fact that the appellate court adopted the findings WHEREFORE, the challenged judgment of respondent Court of Appeals is
of the trial court, as in this case, makes the same binding upon the Supreme hereby MODIFIED with regard to the amount of damages awarded to private
Court, for the factual findings of said appellate court are generally binding on respondents and the awards of the trial court on this matter are hereby
the latter. For that matter the findings of the Court of Appeals by itself, and reinstated for that purpose. In all other respects, the decision of respondent
which are supported by substantial evidence, are almost beyond the power of court is AFFIRMED, without pronouncement as to costs.
review by the Supreme Court. 8
SO ORDERED.
Hence, on this aspect of its recourse, petitioner cannot expect a reversal since
it is a basic rule that only questions of law may be raised in an appeal
by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in cases thus brought to it from the Court of Appeals is
limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it. 9 It is not the
function of this Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again. Its
jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been
committed by the lower court. Barring a showing that the factual findings
complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so
glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings
must stand, for the Supreme Court is not expected or required to examine or
contrast the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties. 10

However, this Court finds that respondent Court of Appeals committed a

reversible error of law in increasing the amount of damages awarded to
private respondents by the court a quo.