SPECIAL FIRST
DIVISION
BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
137148
November 18, 2003
-versus-
CARLOS LEOBRERA
AND
COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O
N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
This resolves the
respective Motions for Reconsideration of the parties in the
above-captioned
consolidated cases.
G.R. No. 137147
In G.R. No. 137147,
we rendered a Decision on January 29, 2002, the dispositive portion of
which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In view
whereof,
the Court denies the petition and affirms the decisions of the Court of
Appeals (in CA-G.R. CV No. 40988) and the trial court, with the
modification
that the award of actual damages is reduced to P200,000.00, and
P50,000.00
as attorney's fees.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[1]
Both petitioner Bank of
the Philippine Islands and respondent Carlos Leobrera filed motions for
reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision. In its Motion for Partial
Reconsideration/Clarification,
petitioner bank raises the following grounds:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I. THE
LOWER
COURTS' EXORBITANT AWARD OF ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) MORAL
DAMAGES,
WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT,
SHOULD
LIKEWISE BE DELETED IN LINE WITH THE RULING IN G.R. NO. 137148
INVOLVING
THE SAME PARTIES.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II. THE LOWER
COURTS'
ORDER TO RECONVEY THE FORECLOSED PROPERTIES TO RESPONDENT LEOBRERA
SHOULD
BE CLARIFIED THAT THEY ARE STILL SUBJECT TO THE REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
EXECUTED
BY RESPONDENT LEOBRERA.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand,
respondent
Leobrera relies on the following arguments in his Motion for
Reconsideration:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. THE
HONORABLE
COURT ERRED IN REDUCING THE AWARD OF ACTUAL DAMAGES FROM ONE MILLION
PESOS
(P1,000,000.00) AS DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS TO TWO HUNDRED
THOUSAND
PESOS (P200,000.00); ANDchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. THE HONORABLE
COURT
ERRED IN REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES FROM ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND
PESOS (P100,000.00) AS DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS TO FIFTY
THOUSAND
PESOS (P50,000.00).[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration is without merit. The factual bases of the awards of
moral
damages in this case and in G.R. No. 137148 are different. As the Court
of Appeals held in this case, moral damages may be awarded because
petitioner
bank was guilty of gross negligence and bad faith in dealing with
respondent.
This was a finding of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals
which we chose not to disturb.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Indeed, it is axiomatic
that in petitions for review on certiorari, only questions of law may
be
raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. Factual findings
of
the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive on the parties and upon
this Court and will not be reviewed or disturbed on appeal. The rule
admits
of certain exceptions, such as:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) when
the
findings of fact of the appellate court are at variance with those of
the
trial court; chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) when the Court
of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by
the parties which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion;
and chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) when the judgment
itself is based on a misapprehension of facts.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As we held in the
assailed
decision, petitioner failed to prove that the case at bar falls within
the exceptions.
Anent the second ground,
we agree with respondent's contention that this issue is being raised
for
the first time. Indeed, the records show that the ruling of the Court
of
Appeals nullifying the foreclosure of respondent's real estate mortgage
and ordering petitioner to reconvey the mortgaged properties to him was
not pleaded as an error in the instant petition for review.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As a rule, a party who
deliberately adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and
decided
by the lower court will not be permitted to change theory on appeal.
Points
of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of
the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by
a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such
late stage. Basic considerations of due process underlie this rule. It
would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to
present
further evidence material to the new theory, which it could have done
had
it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court.
To permit petitioner in this case to change its theory on appeal would
thus be unfair to respondent, and offend the basic rules of fair play,
justice and due process.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, we
find merit in respondent's motion for reconsideration.cralaw:red
In order that actual
damages may be recovered, the amount actually expended must be
substantiated
with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof
and
on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[6]
As we found in the assailed Decision, the award of P1,000,000.00 as
actual
damages was not fully supported by evidence; and the loss that
respondent
was able show was the $1,763.50 letter of credit and the remittance of
$8,350.94, or a total of $10,114.44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In C.F. Sharp &
Co. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.,[7]
it was held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The repeal
of R.A. 529 by R.A. 8183 has the effect of removing the prohibition on
the stipulation of currency other than Philippine currency, such that
obligations
or transactions may now be paid in the currency agreed upon by the
parties.
Just like R.A. 529, however, the new law does not provide for the
applicable
rate of exchange for the conversion of foreign currency-incurred
obligations
in their peso equivalent. It follows, therefore, that the jurisprudence
established in R.A. No. 529 regarding the rate of conversion remains
applicable.
Thus, in Asia World Recruitment, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission
(313 SCRA 1, 17 [1999]), the Court, applying R.A. No. 8183, sustained
the
ruling of the NLRC that obligations in foreign currency may be
discharged
in Philippine currency based on the prevailing rate at the time of
payment.
The wisdom on which the jurisprudence interpreting R.A. No. 529 is
based
equally holds true with R.A. No. 8183. Verily, it is just and fair to
preserve
the real value of the foreign exchange-incurred obligation to the date
of its payment.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the award of
actual
damages in the assailed decision needs to be modified. There being no
agreement
between the parties that obligations shall be paid in United States
currency,
the amount of actual damages which petitioner should pay to respondent
should be the peso equivalent of $10,114.44 computed at the prevailing
exchange rate at the time of payment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the matter of attorney's
fees, it is well-settled that the award of damages, including
attorney's
fees, lies upon the discretion of the court in the context of the facts
and circumstances of each case.[9]
Considering that this case has been litigated for more than fifteen
years,
we find that the amount of P100,000.00 as award of attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation to respondent is not unreasonable. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
G.R. No. 137148
In G.R. No. 137148,
we rendered a decision on January 30, 2002 disposing of the case thus:
WHEREFORE,
the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals and the trial
court
with modifications as follows:
1.
Ordering
defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P98,975.00 as actual damages;
2. Ordering
defendant
to pay plaintiff P30,000.00 as attorney's fees, and costs of suit.
All awards for moral
and
exemplary damages are deleted.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Only respondent
Leobrera
filed a Motion for Reconsideration, contending that:
I. THE
HONORABLE
COURT ERRED IN REDUCING THE AWARD OF ACTUAL DAMAGES FROM P1,300,000.00
AS DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS TO P98,975.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II. THE HONORABLE
COURT
ERRED IN DELETING THE AWARD OF INTEREST ON ACTUAL DAMAGES DUE THE
RESPONDENT.
III. THE HONORABLE
COURT
ERRED IN REDUCING THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS OF SUIT FROM
P200,000.00
TO P30,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IV. THE HONORABLE
COURT
COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN DELETING THE AWARD OF MORAL AND EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES.[11]
We agree with
respondent
that there was no basis for reducing the award of actual damages from
P1,300,000.00
to P98,975.00. On the contrary, the records substantiate the amount of
actual damages awarded by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The
trial court, in its decision, extensively quoted and lent credence to
respondent's
testimony as to the damages he suffered.[12]
Likewise, the Court of Appeals evaluated anew the said evidence when it
resolved the appeal and affirmed the judgment. Indeed, it is settled
that
when the factual findings of the trial court are confirmed by the Court
of Appeals, said facts are final and conclusive on this Court, unless
the
same are not supported by the evidence on record.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, are binding upon the Supreme Court. This rule may be
disregarded only when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or are not
supported by the evidence on record. But there is no ground to apply
this
exception to the instant case. This Court will not assess all over
again
the evidence adduced by the parties particularly where as in this case
the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals
completely
coincide.[14]
The same is true with
regard
to the award of moral damages, especially considering that both the
Court
of Appeals and the trial court found that petitioner bank acted in bad
faith. Under Article 2220 of the Civil
Code, moral damages may be awarded where the defendant acted
fraudulently
and in bad faith. However, the amount of P10,000,000.00 awarded by the
trial court and the Court of Appeals must be tempered.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moral damages are meant
to compensate the claimant for any physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation and similar injuries unjustly caused.
Although
incapable of pecuniary estimation, the amount must somehow be
proportional
to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted. Moral damages are
not
punitive in nature and were never intended to enrich the claimant at
the
expense of the defendant. Trial courts are given discretion in
determining
the amount, with the limitation that it "should not be palpably and
scandalously
excessive."[15]
Considering the amount of the loss suffered by respondent, the amount
of
P500,000.00 as moral damages is reasonable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nevertheless, the deletion
of the award of exemplary damages is proper. While petitioner bank
acted
in bad faith, the records do not show that it acted in a wanton,
fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, for the same
reason adduced in G.R. No. 137147, the award of attorney's fees of
P30,000.00
must be increased to P100,000.00.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in G.R. No.
137147, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration/Clarification filed by
petitioner
Bank of the Philippine Islands is DENIED for lack of merit. The Motion
for Reconsideration filed by respondent Carlos Leobrera is GRANTED.
Therefore,
petitioner is ordered to pay respondent moral damages in the amount of
P1,000,000.00; attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in the amount
of P100,000.00; and actual damages in the amount of US$10,114.44,
payable
in its equivalent in Philippine currency computed at the prevailing
rate
of exchange at the time of payment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In G.R. No. 137148,
the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Carlos Leobrera is
PARTLY
GRANTED. Petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands is ordered to pay
respondent
actual damages in the amount of P1,300,000.00; moral damages in the
amount
of P500,000.00; and attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in the
amount
of P100,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Sandoval-Gutierrez and Callejo, Sr., JJ.,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, et al., G.R. No. 137147, 29
January 2002.
[2]
Rollo, G.R. No. 137147, p. 247.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., p. 252.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Vicente, et al. v. Planters Development Bank, et al., G.R. No. 136112,
28 January 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Balitaosan v. Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, G.R. No.
138238,
2 September 2003; Philippine Ports Authority v. City of Iloilo, G.R.
No.
109791, 14 July 2003.
[6]
People v. Astudillo, G.R. No. 141518, 29 April 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
G.R. No. 133498, 18 April 2002, 381 SCRA 314.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., at 319–320.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 339 Phil. 605, 633
[1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, et al., G.R. No. 137148, 30
January 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, G.R. No. 137148, pp. 153–165.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
CA Rollo, CA-G.R. CV No. 40929, pp. 36–56.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Bernaldez v. Francia, G.R. No. 143929, 28 February 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Mercado v. People, G.R. No. 149375, 26 November 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Samson v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 150487, 10 July
2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Civil Code, Art. 2232.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |