G.R. No. L-105450 December 17, 1993
PEDRO S. LIMJOCO, SR., JOSE LIMJOCO, WILLY CASTOR AND JOSE FOZ, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND AURORA COPIACO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Aurora Copiaco, a licensed public works contractor, was awarded “pakiao” contracts for the repair and maintenance of the Tarlac Right Earthdike on February 27, 1978. She filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court alleging she entered into an informal partnership/joint venture agreement with petitioner Pedro Limjoco, Sr. and others. The alleged agreement stipulated they would jointly undertake the project; Limjoco, Sr. would manage and supervise; all expenses would be evidenced by receipts; upon completion, Limjoco would render a formal accounting; and net proceeds would be divided equally (50% to Copiaco, 50% to petitioners). Copiaco prayed that Limjoco be ordered to render accounting and pay damages.
Petitioner Pedro Limjoco, Sr. denied any joint venture, claiming instead that Copiaco had sub-contracted or assigned the “pakiao” contracts to him after he paid her P375,000.00, representing 25% of the total contract consideration. No written agreement was presented by either party to support their claims.
The trial court (Judge Ildefonso E. Gascon, who decided the case after it was reassigned from the original judge) ruled in favor of Copiaco, ordering petitioners to submit a proper accounting of project expenses, account for the balance of proceeds collected, and pay moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision but eliminated the awards for damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioners filed the present petition for review.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether a joint venture/informal partnership existed between the parties, as claimed by private respondent Copiaco, or whether the contracts were sub-contracted/assigned to petitioner Limjoco, as claimed by petitioners.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the preponderance of evidence leaned towards the existence of a joint venture (informal partnership) between the parties.
The Court noted the trial judge who decided the case was not the one who heard the witnesses, making a re-examination of the records indispensable. Upon review, the Court found petitioners’ claim of assignment/sub-contract unsupported, notably by the absence of any receipt for the alleged P375,000.00 payment. In contrast, Copiaco established that the contracts were awarded to her company, AIC Construction; that Limjoco, Sr. received P225,000.00 from her for project expenditures, which he failed to refute; and that she obtained certifications from the Bureau of Public Works stating the project had not been subcontracted. Based on this evidence, the existence of the joint venture was upheld.
