GR 135043; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135043 ; July 14, 2004
TOWNE & CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GUILLERMO R. VOLUNTAD (substituted by TOMAS VOLUNTAD and FLORDELIZA ESTEBAN Vda. De VOLUNTAD) respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Towne & City Development Corporation and respondent Guillermo Voluntad entered into a construction contract from 1984 to 1985 for various works at the Virginia Valley Subdivision, with a total contract price of P1,041,359.00. Upon completion, Voluntad demanded payment, alleging he had only received P69,400.00, leaving a balance of P971,959.00. Towne & City countered that it had overpaid Voluntad, having paid P1,022,793.46, and further claimed he owed unpaid rentals for a company house he occupied.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Voluntad, ordering Towne & City to pay P715,228.50 as unpaid balance. The trial court gave credence to Voluntad’s testimony and found the petitioner’s evidence of payment insufficient. Towne & City appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in full.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s factual findings regarding the sufficiency of evidence to prove full payment of the construction contract.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decisions. The petition raised questions of fact, which are not reviewable in a petition for review under Rule 45. The Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts, and the uniform factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals are generally binding and conclusive.
Petitioner’s argument—that the appellate court misapplied the ruling in Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals regarding vouchers as proof of payment—was unavailing. The core issue of whether the presented vouchers actually evidenced full payment to Voluntad is a factual question. The lower courts found these vouchers inadequate as proof because they were not official receipts and, crucially, the signatures acknowledging receipt were not verified as those of Voluntad. The evaluation of this evidence’s weight and credibility falls within the domain of the trial court. Since the factual conclusions of both lower courts were supported by evidence and none of the recognized exceptions to the rule on factual review were present, the Supreme Court upheld the finding that petitioner failed to substantiate its claim of full payment.