GR 110340; (May, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110340 . May 28, 2001.
WESTERN SHIPYARD SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SANTIAGO LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Santiago Lighterage Corporation (SLC) owned the cargo vessel “Dinky.” On February 14, 1983, SLC entered into a contract of services with petitioner Western Shipyard Services, Inc. (WSSI) for the vessel’s conversion into an LCT. The contract stipulated completion within 130 calendar days from docking (February 28, 1983), with a demurrage of P10,000 per day for delay. SLC paid P200,000. On January 30, 1986, SLC filed a complaint for rescission of contract with damages and replevin against WSSI, alleging default in delivery, violation of contract terms, vessel deterioration, and unrealized profits. Two contract versions (Annex “A” and Annex “I”) existed, differing in terms like lay days, specific work items, costs, and completion period (130 calendar days vs. 120 working days). The Regional Trial Court rescinded the contract, applied Annex “A” against WSSI as drafter, and ordered WSSI to pay SLC P4,000,000 in liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling Annex “I” expressed the parties’ intent and SLC was at fault for the delay. It dismissed the complaint and ordered SLC to pay WSSI P1,253,498.88 for work on “Dinky” and P352,617.16 for work on LCT Placer, plus attorney’s fees. Upon SLC’s motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals amended its decision, reducing the award for work on “Dinky” to P1,067,228.73 and deleting the award for work on LCT Placer. WSSI’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
1. Whether the reduction by the Court of Appeals of the fees for services rendered by WSSI from P1,253,498.88 to P1,067,228.73 is justified.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deleting the award for work accomplished by WSSI on the LCT Placer.
RULING
The petition is not meritorious. The Supreme Court noted that the petition raised pure questions of fact, which are not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court of Appeals, in its resolution, re-examined the evidence and found the reduced amount of P1,067,228.73 as the justified compensation for the work accomplished on the “Dinky”/”LCT Loadstar.” The deletion of the award for work on the LCT Placer was due to lack of merit of the claim. The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which are generally binding and conclusive. The petition was denied.