G.R. No. 158557 ; February 4, 2008
FERNANDO MONTECILLO, petitioner, vs. IRMA PAMA, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Fernando Montecillo filed a complaint for damages and specific performance before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City against respondents Irma Pama, Librado Sardoma, and Henry Balonzo. He alleged that on March 24, 1988, while driving a taxicab co-owned by Pama and Sardoma, he was flagged down by men claiming to be Philippine Constabulary members near Boni Avenue, Mandaluyong City. These men, at gunpoint, ordered him out and drove away with the taxi and a passenger. After reporting the incident to Sardoma and the police, Montecillo claimed the respondents suspected him of conspiring in the carnapping. He asserted they illegally detained him from March 25 to 27, 1988, maltreated him, and that respondent Pama confiscated his driver’s license, preventing him from working for two years. The respondents denied Montecillo was their employee, claimed he drove the taxi without authority, and asserted it was the Anti-Carnapping Unit, not Pama, who took his license for records. They also denied detaining him, stating he volunteered to help locate the taxi. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding Montecillo failed to prove by clear and credible evidence that Pama unlawfully confiscated his license. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal, prompting Montecillo to elevate the case via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Fernando Montecillo was able to establish by preponderance of evidence the liability of respondent Irma Pama for unlawfully confiscating his driver’s license.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petition called for a review of factual findings, which is generally not within its province. The factual findings of the RTC, as adopted by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive absent any showing of exceptions, none of which were present. The Court found that Montecillo failed to prove his claim by a preponderance of evidence. He relied solely on his uncorroborated testimony, which the lower courts found lacking in credibility, implausible, and contradictory. The Court of Appeals noted inconsistencies, such as Montecillo’s claim of forcible detention despite evidence he opted to stay to help find the vehicle. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great weight. Since Montecillo did not present sufficient evidence to establish that Pama confiscated his license or that he was unlawfully detained, the RTC correctly dismissed his complaint for damages.