GR 182307; (June, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182307 . June 06, 2018
BELINA CANCIO AND JEREMY PAMPOLINA, PETITIONERS, VS. PERFORMANCE FOREIGN EXCHANGE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioners Belina Cancio and Jeremy Pampolina opened a joint foreign currency trading account with respondent Performance Foreign Exchange Corporation (Performance Forex), depositing USD 10,000.00 as margin. They executed a trust/trading facilities agreement with Performance Forex and a separate agreement appointing Rolando Hipol as their agent to conduct trades on their behalf. The petitioners alleged that Hipol, without their authorization, executed numerous loss-incurring trades on their account. They filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against both Hipol and Performance Forex, arguing that Performance Forex was solidarity liable for the unauthorized acts of its accredited broker, Hipol.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding Performance Forex solidarity liable with Hipol. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court found that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of lack of authorization for the disputed trades. It noted that the petitioners received regular account statements and did not immediately repudiate the transactions, and that their own evidence showed they had given prior trading instructions to Hipol for some of the contested deals. The CA thus absolved Performance Forex from liability.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals regarding the lack of proof of unauthorized trades by broker Rolando Hipol.
RULING
No. The petition was denied. The Supreme Court emphasized that a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to questions of law. The petitioners’ core argument—that the Court of Appeals erred in its appreciation of the evidence concerning the authorization of the trades—raises a question of fact. The Court is not a trier of facts and does not re-examine the evidentiary findings of the lower courts, especially when supported by substantial evidence. The CA meticulously reviewed the records, including account statements and correspondence, and found that the petitioners failed to prove that the loss-incurring trades were executed without their consent. This factual determination is binding and conclusive. Since no reversible error of law was committed by the Court of Appeals, and the petition merely sought a re-evaluation of factual evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision absolving Performance Forex from liability.