GR 179812; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 179812; July 6, 2010
ETERTON MULTI-RESOURCES CORPORATION (formerly Eternit Corporation), Petitioner, vs. FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Eterton Multi-Resources Corporation (Eterton) and respondent Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corporation (FPFC) entered into an agreement wherein Eterton undertook to deliver asbestos cement pipes for FPFC’s waterworks project. FPFC paid ₱1,260,521.83, but Eterton delivered only ₱1,156,408.48 worth of pipes. Eterton later refused further deliveries unless the price was increased. To meet its project deadline, FPFC paid an additional ₱125,168.03 under protest.
FPFC subsequently demanded from Eterton the value of the undelivered pipes and a refund of its overpayment, but Eterton refused. This prompted FPFC to file a collection suit. Eterton denied the allegations, contending that the claimed amount had been applied to price escalations and penalty charges due to FPFC’s delayed payments.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s factual finding that Eterton incurred a short delivery, thereby obliging it to refund FPFC’s excess payment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The core issue raised by Eterton involved a challenge to the factual findings of the lower courts—specifically, the existence of a short delivery and the consequent monetary obligation. In a Rule 45 petition, only questions of law are reviewable; the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive.
The Regional Trial Court meticulously compared delivery records, invoices, and gate passes, concluding that a short delivery valued at ₱265,927.66 had occurred. After crediting Eterton for over-deliveries admitted by FPFC, the net award was ₱104,102.67. The Court of Appeals found these findings well-supported by evidence and rejected Eterton’s defense of price escalation due to a lack of sufficient proof. The Supreme Court, upon review, found no compelling reason to deviate from these concurrent factual determinations, as none of the recognized exceptions to the rule on factual finality were present. The petition, being a factual inquiry disguised as a legal question, was thus unmeritorious.