G.R. No. 43356 ; January 30, 1990
Thelma Fernan, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and White Gold Incorporated; Stephen Sy, Victor Sy and Melanio Dejino, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Thelma Fernan sued private respondents for damages, alleging she was unlawfully detained and ill-treated on suspicion of shoplifting at the White Gold Department Store in Cebu City on June 29, 1968. The trial court ruled in her favor, awarding damages based on Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code. On appeal, the Court of Appeals initially affirmed this decision but later reversed itself upon a motion for reconsideration, dismissing Fernan’s complaint.
The core factual dispute centers on the incident’s nature. Fernan claimed respondent Victor Sy shouted for her arrest, after which supervisor Melanio Dejino forcibly dragged her to a room, detained her for 15-20 minutes, and examined her wallet against her protests. She was only released after salesgirl Leonora Alcantara confirmed Fernan had purchased the wallet there days prior. Conversely, respondents asserted the encounter was courteous. They claimed Dejino merely approached Fernan, politely inquired about the wallet, and escorted her to a guest room where she voluntarily proved ownership. Alcantara then recalled the prior sale and apologized.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should review and overturn the factual findings of the Court of Appeals.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court emphasized that its power of review under Rule 45 is generally confined to questions of law, not fact. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive, absent any clearly established exception. While one recognized exception exists when the appellate court’s factual findings conflict with those of the trial court, this does not automatically justify Supreme Court intervention.
The Court held that such a conflict merely provides a prima facie basis for review, but intervention is warranted only upon a clear showing of gross misperception, manifest bias, or a demonstrated disregard of evidence by the appellate court. The petitioner failed to demonstrate such exceptional circumstances. The mere fact that the Court of Appeals reconsidered and reversed its own initial affirmance, based on a re-evaluation of the evidence, does not transform its factual conclusions into reviewable questions of law. The Supreme Court found no justification to substitute its own assessment for that of the Court of Appeals. The dismissal of a related criminal complaint by the City Fiscal, while not conclusive, further suggested weaknesses in the petitioner’s evidentiary foundation. Thus, the petition was dismissed for raising no reviewable error of law.