Universal Motors Corp Vs CA

G.R. No.
L-47432 January 27, 1992
On January 4, 1966 P filed a complaint for the recovery

of the unpaid balance with the CFI of Manila.
UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORPORATION, P,

vs.
PRs in their Answer with Counterclaim admitted the
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RAFAEL VERENDIA,
principal allegations of the Complaint, except that they
TEODORO GALICIA and MARCELINA
insisted that their outstanding account was only
GALICIA,respondents.
P28,911.10 as of October 31, 1965.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
The P then filed a motion for summary judgment, but the

same was denied by the lower court.
Facts:
When the case was called for hearing on February 9,
On December 15, 1962 private respondents purchased
from petitioner 2 Mercedes Benz trucks at a cash price
of P33,608.27 each payable within 90 days.
1967, neither the PRs nor their counsel appeared

despite due notice, hence upon motion of the P's
counsel, P was allowed to present evidence ex-parte.
The PRs made several payments amounting to the sum
On the basis of such evidence, the lower court on
of P7100.00 which were applied to the principal, interest
February 10, 1967 rendered judgment in favor of the P.
and to the expenses incurred in executing and

registering a deed of chattel mortgage in favor of P. For
failure of the PRs to pay the cash price of P67,216.54 for
On April 8, 1968, after re-hearing the case on motion

filed by PR Verendia, wherein PR claimed that he
overpaid P. The court reiterated their Feb. 10, judgment.
the two vehicles within the 90-day period, their account

was re-scheduled to allow them a period of 30 months
PRs filed an appeal to the CA claiming that the LC erred
within which to complete the payments.
when it did not give merit to Verendias attempt to prove

that he was not indebted to P and when it allowed
On June 3, 1963 PRs executed a promissory note in

favor of the P for the sum of P74,064.40 covering the rescheduled account thereby promising to pay the same in
monthly installments at the rates stipulated on the PN
execution pending appeal (However, P could not find

any visible properties belonging to PRs that may be
levied upon, and, therefore, the writ of execution
remained unenforced.).
with 12% interest.

CA reversed the LC decision.
As of September 16, 1965, the balance of said account
was P40,945.31. But despite repeated demands, the
PRs failed to pay.
P filed a MR which was denied by CA.
Hence, this present petition.
analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its

jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that
Issues/Held:
might have been committed. Barring, therefore, a
WoN the CA committed an error of law when it allowed
showing that the findings complained of are totally
PRs, who have admitted their liability to P in their
devoid of support in the records, or that they are so
answer, to change their defense when they have not
glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of
amended
discretion, such findings must stand for the SC is not
their
pleadings
at
any
stage
of
the
proceedings- NO.
expected or required to examine or contrast the oral and

documentary evidence submitted by the parties. (Andres
WoN the CA erred in holding that the appeal interposed
v. Manufacturers Hanover and Trust Corp.)
by Verendia (being a solidary debtor) will inure to the

benefit of the other PRs who have not appealed- NO.
CA opined that the record consisting of both the oral and

documentary
evidence
presented
in
the
case
Ratio:
outweighed the findings of fact of the trial court.
Re Findings of Fact
The apparent conflict between the findings of the
We already stressed in the case of Bustamante

v. Hon. Court of Appeals that as a rule, findings of fact of
the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed
on appeal, provided, they are borne out by the record or
are based on substantial evidence. However, this rule
admits of certain exceptions:
appellate court and that of the trial court is due to

the fact that evidence was presented ex parte in the
lower court while the evidence of the PRs were
presented only on appeal. Hence, the trial court
decided the case on the basis solely of the evidence of
the P while the respondent court reached a decision with
the advantage of weighing and analyzing both the
1. as when the findings of facts are conclusions
evidence of the P and the PRs.
without citation of specific evidence on which

they are based;
Bearing in mind these facts and in the absence of any

showing that the findings complained of are totally
2. or the appellate court's findings are contrary to

those of the trial court
devoid of support in the records, such findings must

stand and be admitted as final and conclusive.
Furthermore, only question of law may be raised on a
Re P's contention that the CA committed an error in
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
allowing PRs to change their defense when they have
Revised Rules of Court. It is not the function of the SC to
not at any stage of the proceedings amended their
"defendants jointly and severally" to pay the new
pleadings, Section 5, Rule 10 of the ROC provides:
amount. It explained that though, as a matter of

procedure, the modification shall be applied only to the
. . . Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary
appellant, substantial justice and equity also demand
to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these

issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time,
that the decision should be interpreted to refer to the
even after judgment; but failure so to amend does not affect
non-appealing defendant as well. There exists a
the result of the trial of these issues.
strong and compelling reason to warrant an exception to
Judgment may still be rendered not on the basis of

the issues alleged, but on the basis of the issues
discussed and proved in the course of the trial.
(Paras, Rules of Court Annotated, Vol. I) Hence, the
failure of the PRs to amend their pleadings in order to
conform to the evidence presented will not at all affect
the result of the trial.
Re Effect of An Appeal of a Solidary Debtor to the Other

Debtors Who Have Not Filed An Appeal
the rule that a judgment creditor is entitled to execution

of a final and executory judgment against a party
especially if that party failed to appeal. (Olacao v.
National
Labor
Relations
Commission;
Quigui
v.
Boncaros,; Orata v. IAC)
It is obvious that the CA committed no error in ruling that

its decision inures to the benefit of all the PRs regardless
of the fact that only one appealed. It is erroneous to rule
that the decision of the trial court could be reversed as to
the appealing private respondent and continue in force
In the case of Citytrust Banking Corporation v. The
against the other PRs. The latter could not remain bound
Court of Appeals and William Samara, We already ruled
after the former had been released; although the other
that "the Court will not allow the absurd situation where a
PRs had not joined in the appeal, the decision rendered
co-defendant who is adjudged to be primarily liable for
by the CA inured to their benefit. When the obligation
sums of money and for tort would be charged for an
of the other solidary debtors is so dependent on that
amount lesser than what its co-defendant is bound to
of their co-solidary debtor, the release of the one
pay to the common creditor and allowed to collect from
who appealed, provided it be not on grounds
the first co-defendant. Such a situation runs counter to
personal to such appealing private respondent,
the principle of solidarity in obligations as between co-
operates as well as to the others who did not appeal.
defendants established by a judgment for recovery of
It is for this reason, that a decision or judgment in
sum of money and damages . . ."
favor of the PR who appealed can be invoked as res

judicata by the other PRs.
The Court therein noted the modification made by the

CA which ordered not only the appellant therein but both

Universal Motors Corp Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universal Motors Corp Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universal Motors Corp Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-47432 January 27, 1992

On January 4, 1966 P filed a complaint for the recovery

UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORPORATION, P,

PRs in their Answer with Counterclaim admitted the

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RAFAEL VERENDIA,

principal allegations of the Complaint, except that they

TEODORO GALICIA and MARCELINA

insisted that their outstanding account was only

P28,911.10 as of October 31, 1965.

The P then filed a motion for summary judgment, but the

1967, neither the PRs nor their counsel appeared

The PRs made several payments amounting to the sum

On the basis of such evidence, the lower court on

of P7100.00 which were applied to the principal, interest

February 10, 1967 rendered judgment in favor of the P.

and to the expenses incurred in executing and

On April 8, 1968, after re-hearing the case on motion

the two vehicles within the 90-day period, their account

PRs filed an appeal to the CA claiming that the LC erred

within which to complete the payments.

when it did not give merit to Verendias attempt to prove

On June 3, 1963 PRs executed a promissory note in

execution pending appeal (However, P could not find

with 12% interest.

P filed a MR which was denied by CA.

Hence, this present petition.

analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its

might have been committed. Barring, therefore, a

WoN the CA committed an error of law when it allowed

showing that the findings complained of are totally

PRs, who have admitted their liability to P in their

devoid of support in the records, or that they are so

answer, to change their defense when they have not

glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of

discretion, such findings must stand for the SC is not

expected or required to examine or contrast the oral and

WoN the CA erred in holding that the appeal interposed

v. Manufacturers Hanover and Trust Corp.)

by Verendia (being a solidary debtor) will inure to the

CA opined that the record consisting of both the oral and

outweighed the findings of fact of the trial court.

The apparent conflict between the findings of the

We already stressed in the case of Bustamante

appellate court and that of the trial court is due to

1. as when the findings of facts are conclusions

evidence of the P and the PRs.

without citation of specific evidence on which

Bearing in mind these facts and in the absence of any

2. or the appellate court's findings are contrary to

devoid of support in the records, such findings must

Furthermore, only question of law may be raised on a

Re P's contention that the CA committed an error in

petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the

allowing PRs to change their defense when they have

Revised Rules of Court. It is not the function of the SC to

not at any stage of the proceedings amended their

"defendants jointly and severally" to pay the new