Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Information | Reference
Case Title:
UPSI PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC.,
petitioner, vs. DIESEL
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. and FGU Note.·Once a writ is placed in the hands of the sheriff
INSURANCE CORP., respondents. it becomes his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable
Citation: 549 SCRA 12 celerity and promptness to execute it in accordance with its
More... mandate. (Lariosa vs. Bandala, 409 SCRA 100 [2003])
··o0o··
Search Result
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
13
14
15
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
_______________
16
_______________
17
_______________
18
_______________
11 Id., at p. 77.
12 Id., at p. 96.
13 Id., at p. 97.
19
_______________
20
The Issues
In its petition in G.R. No. 154885, Diesel raises the
following issues:
I
Whether or not portion of the Decision dated April 16, 2002 of
the Honorable [CA] denying additional expenses to complete the
unfinished and abandoned work of [Diesel], is null and void for
being contrary to clean and convincing evidence on record.
II
Whether or not portion of the Decision x x x of the [CA] finding
delay of only forty five (45) days is null and void for being not in
accord with contractual stipulations upon which the controversy
arise.
III
Whether or not the resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeals
denying the herein petitionerÊs motion for reconsideration and
partially granting the respondentÊs motion for reconsideration is
like-
_______________
21
wise null and void as it does not serve its purpose for being more
on expounding than rectifying errors.17
First Issue
_______________
22
_______________
23
_______________
20 Tison v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121027, July 31, 1997, 276
SCRA 582, 593.
24
_______________
26
UPSI for the use of its freight elevator·in the face of the denial
thereof, it could have made the necessary remedial measures
x x x. In other words, those delays were foreseeable on the part
of Diesel, with the application of even ordinary diligence. But
Diesel did all of those when construction was about to commence.
Therefore, We hold that the delays occasioned by DieselÊs
inability to install its hoisting machine x x x [were] attributable
solely to Diesel, and thus the resultant delay cannot be charged
against the ninety-day period for the termination of the
construction.‰22
_______________
27
_______________
28
_______________
29
_______________
28 Id., at p. 71.
29 Id., at p. 94.
30
Fourth Issue
31
facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in
making its findings the [CA] went beyond the issues of the case,
or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to
the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when
the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitionerÊs
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10)
when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11)
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if
properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion.‰30 (Emphasis supplied.)
_______________
30 G.R. No. 169596, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 432, 441; citations omitted.
31 Rollo (G.R. No. 154885), p. 91.
32
_______________
33
VOL. 549, MARCH 24, 2008 33
Diesel Construction Co., Inc. vs. UPSI Property Holdings,
Inc.
_______________