GR L 72283; (December, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-72283 December 12, 1986
PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, KINGSWOOD TRADING CO., INC., and CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pilar Development Corporation filed a complaint for damages against respondent Kingswood Trading Co., Inc., alleging that Kingswood delivered 3,000 bags of defective Midland Cement. This cement was used to manufacture concrete mix for petitioner’s subdivision projects. Upon removal of forms, the concrete remained soft and developed cracks. Laboratory analysis indicated the cement had low mortar strength and low SO3 content. Consequently, petitioner had to demolish and reconstruct affected structures, incurring losses and project delays.
Kingswood, a distributor, denied liability and filed a third-party complaint against the manufacturer, Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP). The trial court dismissed the main and third-party complaints, finding petitioner failed to prove the defective concrete was caused specifically by the Midland Cement. It noted that another brand of cement (Island Cement) was delivered to the same batching plant silos on the same afternoon, creating a probability the defect originated from the other cement. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court committed a reversible error of law in affirming the trial court’s dismissal, based on the undisputed factual findings.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The core issue was characterized as a question of fact, not law, and thus beyond the Court’s scope of review in a petition for review. Petitioner itself accepted the appellate court’s factual findings as correct and undisputed. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between questions of law and fact. A question of law arises when the doubt concerns what the law is on a given set of facts. A question of fact exists when the doubt concerns the truth or falsehood of alleged facts—here, whether the proven facts sufficiently established that the Midland Cement caused the damages.
The Court emphasized that the function of examining evidence and resolving factual questions is primarily vested in the Court of Appeals. Its factual findings are generally conclusive and binding. The petitioner’s challenge—that the appellate court drew incorrect conclusions from the undisputed facts—was essentially an invitation to re-evaluate evidence, which is prohibited. The Court found no compelling reason to overturn the appellate court’s conclusion that petitioner failed to establish by preponderance of evidence the causal link between the delivered cement and the construction defects. However, modifying the equitable portion of the decision, the Court ordered Kingswood to return the invoice value (P11,326.00) for the 809 bags of cement petitioner had physically returned.