G.R. No. 139272; December 5, 2000
FLORENTINA D. DAVID, petitioner, vs. MANILA BULLETIN PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Florentina David engaged the services of respondent Manila Bulletin to publish a notice for the second death anniversary of her husband in its November 2, 1989 issue. She paid the corresponding fee and received an official receipt. However, the notice was not published. David alleged that due to this non-publication, the scheduled masses and prepared festivities in Navotas and Baguio City were unattended, causing waste and embarrassment. She filed a complaint for damages, claiming the respondent breached its contractual obligation.
The respondent’s defense was that the non-publication was due to the fault of David’s secretary, Rosa Besmanos. It contended that the proper procedure for placing a display advertisement required the client to submit the advertising material and the insertion order slip to the ad-taker. The respondent asserted that Besmanos failed to return the completed insertion order slip, despite clear warning signs posted at the advertising counter. Consequently, the respondent had no material to typeset and publish for the specified issue.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s factual finding that the cause of the non-publication was attributable to the petitioner’s own negligence, thereby absolving the respondent from liability for damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Decision. The core legal principle applied is that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court. A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must raise only questions of law, not questions of fact. The petitioner’s arguments essentially challenged the factual conclusions of the lower courts regarding who was responsible for the non-publication.
The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this rule. The lower courts’ findings were based on a careful evaluation of the evidence, including testimonies and documents. They found credible the respondent’s evidence that only one insertion order was issued, that it was never returned by the petitioner’s agent, and that the petitioner herself still possessed the original insertion order during trial. This supported the conclusion that the secretary failed to follow the visibly posted procedure, a negligence attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the factual findings were tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error, which are the recognized exceptions to the general rule on the finality of factual findings. Since no reversible error was committed, the respondent incurred no contractual breach, and thus, the petitioner was not entitled to any award of damages.