GR 110340; (April, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110340 May 28, 2001
WESTERN SHIPYARD SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SANTIAGO LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Santiago Lighterage Corporation (SLC) owned the cargo vessel “Dinky” and contracted Western Shipyard Services, Inc. (WSSI) for its conversion into an LCT. Two contract versions existed: Annex “A” (submitted by SLC) stipulated a 130-calendar day completion period with a P10,000 daily demurrage for delay, while Annex “I” (submitted by WSSI) specified 120 working days and contained different cost items. WSSI failed to deliver the renovated vessel within the stipulated period. SLC filed a complaint for rescission and damages. The Regional Trial Court rescinded the contract, applying Annex “A” and interpreting any obscurity against WSSI as the contract drafter, and ordered WSSI to pay P4 million in liquidated damages.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. It found no ambiguity requiring interpretation against WSSI and held that Annex “I” expressed the true agreement, superseding Annex “A.” The appellate court dismissed SLC’s complaint, finding SLC partly responsible for the delays, and instead ordered SLC to pay WSSI for services rendered. Upon WSSI’s motion, the Court of Appeals later amended its decision, reducing the awarded amount from P1,253,498.88 to P1,067,228.73 and deleting an additional P352,617.16 award. WSSI then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contesting the reduction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in amending its decision to reduce the monetary award due to WSSI.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ resolution. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive and binding, especially when supported by substantial evidence. A review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law; it does not authorize re-evaluation of factual evidence absent grave abuse of discretion or a showing that the findings are grounded entirely on speculation.
The legal logic is anchored on the hierarchy of judicial review and the finality of factual determinations. The Court of Appeals, in its amended resolution, meticulously recalculated the amount due to WSSI based on the evidence on record, specifically the terms of the applicable contract (Annex “I”). The Supreme Court found no indication that this recalculation was arbitrary or unsupported. Since WSSI failed to demonstrate that the appellate court’s factual conclusions were devoid of evidentiary basis or constituted a misapprehension of facts, the Supreme Court upheld them. The reduction in the award was a legitimate exercise of the Court of Appeals’ authority to correct its own decision based on the evidence, and such an exercise does not present a reviewable question of law.