GR 174154; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174154 ; July 30, 2009
JESUS CUENCO, Petitioner, vs. TALISAY TOURIST SPORTS COMPLEX, INCORPORATED and MATIAS B. AZNAR III, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jesus Cuenco leased a cockpit complex from respondents. Upon the lease’s expiration, a new lessee was awarded the contract via public bidding. Cuenco demanded the return of his ₱500,000 security deposit, but respondents refused. He thus filed a complaint for sum of money. The Regional Trial Court ruled in his favor, ordering the deposit’s return with interest. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court, in its October 17, 2008 Decision, partially granted Cuenco’s petition, reinstating the RTC decision but with modifications: it held the corporate respondent solely liable to return the deposit after deducting two months’ arrears in rentals and imposed legal interest.
Both parties moved for reconsideration. Petitioner denies he overstayed for two months and thus contests the rental deduction. Respondents, on the other hand, seek a further deduction for alleged repair costs they incurred on the premises and pray for the affirmance of the CA decision.
ISSUE
The core issue for resolution is whether the motions for reconsideration, which raise factual challenges to the Court’s prior findings, have merit.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied both motions. The Court emphasized that as a rule, it is not a trier of facts. While it exceptionally reviewed the factual records due to conflicting lower court findings in its main Decision, the motions for reconsideration essentially ask for a re-examination of these factual conclusions, which is not permissible.
On petitioner’s denial of overstaying, the Court found his motion without merit. The records, specifically the uncontroverted testimony of witness Ateniso Coronado, established that petitioner continued operations for two months after the lease expired. This factual finding by the CA, which petitioner never contested in his pleadings before the RTC, CA, or even in his Memorandum before the Supreme Court, is binding. Issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on motion for reconsideration, as this violates fair play, justice, and due process.
Regarding respondents’ claim for repair costs, the Court also found no basis. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, had ruled that the repairs were undertaken and paid for by the new lessee, not by the respondents. Therefore, respondents have no valid claim for reimbursement to be deducted from the deposit. The Court concluded that litigation must end, and the parties must abide by the final judgment rendered.