G.R. No. 75908 . October 22, 1999.
FEDERICO O. BORROMEO, LOURDES O. BORROMEO and FEDERICO O. BORROMEO, INC., petitioners, vs. AMANCIO SUN and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Amancio Sun filed an action to compel the transfer to his name of 23,223 shares of stock in F.O.B., Inc., registered in the name of petitioner Federico O. Borromeo. Sun claimed the shares were his but were placed in Borromeo’s name for business purposes, and presented a Deed of Assignment dated January 16, 1974, purportedly signed by Borromeo. Petitioner Federico O. Borromeo disclaimed participation, alleging his signature on the Deed was forged. The trial court found the questioned signature to be Borromeo’s genuine signature from between 1954 to 1957, although the document was dated 1974. On appeal, the Court of Appeals initially reversed the trial court, finding the signature a forgery and awarding damages to petitioners. However, upon Sun’s motion for reconsideration, which challenged the credibility of petitioners’ expert witness, Segundo Tabayoyong, the Court of Appeals reconsidered. The parties agreed to have the Deed examined by the Philippine Constabulary (PC) Crime Laboratory. Its Report concluded the questioned signature and the standard signatures from 1950-1957 were written by the same person and the questioned signature could have been signed between 1950-1957. After admitting the Report and receiving memoranda, the Court of Appeals reversed its own earlier decision and affirmed in toto the trial court’s decision. Petitioners sought review, arguing they did not waive the right to question the PC Report’s competency, and contesting the finding that the signature was genuine from 1954-1957 but placed on a 1974 document.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision which held that the signature on the Deed of Assignment was the genuine signature of Federico O. Borromeo from the period 1954-1957, despite the document being dated 1974.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that factual findings of the Court of Appeals, especially when it affirms the trial court, are conclusive and not reviewable. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, based on the PC Crime Laboratory Report which corroborated the findings of private respondent’s expert, found the signature to be genuine. The Court noted that petitioners’ expert witness, Tabayoyong, limited his comparison to 1974 standards and avoided comparison with 1950-1957 standards, which suggested the questioned signature was strikingly similar to Borromeo’s signatures from that earlier period. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Court of Appeals giving credence to the PC Report. The petitioners’ contention that they did not waive their right to cross-examine aspects of the Report was found to provide no proper basis to deviate from the appellate court’s factual findings.