GR 122275; (December, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122275 . December 14, 2001.
MA. CONSOLACION LAZARO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES TERESITA and JOSEFINO BORJA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, the spouses Borja, obtained a loan of P892,500 from petitioner’s mother, who acted as the representative of Manuel Cruz and C. Hermoso Tannery, Inc. To secure the loan, the Borjas issued postdated checks and delivered pieces of jewelry as collateral. Upon default in payment, petitioner Ma. Consolacion Lazaro demanded payment, claiming she was the lender, after the checks were dishonored. The Borjas refused, contending they did not borrow from petitioner and that their obligation had been settled by the collateral jewelry.
Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding that petitioner was not the real party in interest, as the loan was extended by the corporation represented by her mother. The court also awarded damages and attorney’s fees to the Borjas on their counterclaim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) Whether petitioner is the real party in interest entitled to institute the collection suit; and (2) Whether the obligation was extinguished by the collateralization of jewelry.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. On the first issue, the Court held that petitioner was not the real party in interest. Factual findings from both lower courts conclusively established that the lender was Manuel Cruz and C. Hermoso Tannery, Inc., represented by petitioner’s mother, not petitioner herself. As a fundamental rule, the Supreme Court does not re-evaluate factual questions in a petition for review; findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive. Petitioner failed to demonstrate any exception to this rule.
Regarding the second issue on the extinguishment of the obligation by the jewelry collateral, the Court refused to rule on the matter. This issue was raised for the first time on appeal before the Supreme Court. It was not alleged in the complaint nor timely raised in the proceedings before the lower courts. Any issue not raised below is barred by estoppel and cannot be considered for the first time at this late stage. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint for lack of personality to sue and the awards on the counterclaim were upheld.