Alicbusan v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Cesar Cordero and Baby's Canteen against Leopoldo Alicbusan and Philippine Service Enterprises, Inc. Cordero and Alicbusan were partners in Baby's Canteen, with Cordero as Managing Partner and Alicbusan handling accounting and comptrollership. The partnership, initially for a fixed term, continued beyond its expiration. The dispute arose when Alicbusan, as President of Philtranco, allegedly instigated the withholding of remittances from Philtranco to Baby's Canteen, which were derived from employee salary deductions. Cordero claimed this was motivated by bad faith due to business differences in another partnership. Additionally, Cordero alleged that Alicbusan, in retaliation for the lawsuit, initiated the termination of a lease for a stall owned by Cordero's wife at the Philtranco Terminal. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Pasay City ruled in favor of Cordero and Baby's Canteen, finding that a deed of sale and transfer of rights, wherein Alicbusan purportedly sold his share in Baby's Canteen to Cordero, was fictitious. The court upheld the continued existence of the partnership and ordered Philtranco to pay specific amounts for withheld credits and moral damages, and Alicbusan to pay moral damages and attorney's fees. A compromise agreement was later entered into between Cordero and Philtranco, which did not affect Alicbusan's appeal. Alicbusan appealed to the Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court's finding that the deed of sale was simulated and arguing that Cordero owed him the balance of the sale price, and that he should not have been held liable for moral damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the deed of sale simulated and Alicbusan's actions in bad faith, though it reduced the attorney's fees. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner Leopoldo Alicbusan seeks review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. He argues that the appellate court erred in its appreciation of the rules of evidence, particularly regarding presumptions and the burden of proof. Alicbusan contends that the Court of Appeals disregarded legal presumptions favoring the validity of the deed of sale, such as the presumption that private transactions are fair and regular, that the ordinary course of business has been followed, and that there is sufficient consideration. He asserts that the burden of proof was improperly shifted against him. The core issue presented is whether a partnership still existed between him and respondent Cordero, along with other factual matters related to the alleged simulated sale and his liability for damages.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights between petitioner Alicbusan and respondent Cordero was simulated, thus indicating the continued existence of the partnership. Whether petitioner Alicbusan acted in bad faith in instigating the withholding of remittances from Baby's Canteen. Whether petitioner Alicbusan is liable for moral damages and attorney's fees. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its appreciation of the rules of evidence, specifically regarding presumptions and the burden of proof.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED, and the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the simulated Deed of Sale and continued existence of the partnership: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the CA that the Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights was simulated. The Court emphasized that the terms stipulated in the deed, such as the P50,000.00 downpayment and P10,000.00 monthly installments, were never complied with. Instead of the stipulated installments, checks of varying amounts were issued, which the lower court found to be dividends from partnership profits. Furthermore, evidence showed that Alicbusan continued to perform comptrollership functions, overseeing daily sales reports and vouchers, and even delegated this function to his wife after the alleged sale. An audit report dated June 30, 1989, listed Alicbusan as a partner, to which he did not object. These actions and circumstances militated against his contention that the partnership was terminated on April 5, 1989, supporting the conclusion that the sale was fictitious and the partnership continued. On the bad faith in withholding remittances: The Court upheld the findings of both the CA and the RTC that petitioner Alicbusan acted in gross and evident bad faith. His position as President of Philtranco was used to cause the withholding of remittances due to Baby's Canteen. This act was motivated by business differences arising from another partnership operation between him and respondent Cordero. The Court found no reason to set aside the award of moral damages based on this finding of bad faith. On the award of moral damages and attorney's fees: The award of moral damages was affirmed due to petitioner's proven bad faith in causing the withholding of remittances. The award of attorney's fees was also deemed proper, as it was a consequence of petitioner's unjust refusal to settle private respondents' just and lawful claim, which necessitated litigation. The CA had already reduced the attorney's fees by half, and the Supreme Court found no error in this aspect. On the alleged error in appreciation of evidence and presumptions: The Supreme Court rejected petitioner's argument that the CA erred in its appreciation of evidence and presumptions. The Court reiterated that presumptions juris tantum (disputable presumptions) can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. The petitioner's claim that the CA shifted the burden of proof was deemed misplaced. The Court found that the record was replete with evidence establishing the simulated nature of the deed of sale, which effectively rebutted any presumptions of validity. The calibration of evidence and the weight accorded to them are within the exclusive domain of the trial and appellate courts, and the Supreme Court would not interfere absent a showing of lack of evidence supporting the conclusion.
Main Doctrine
A deed of sale transferring partnership rights is considered simulated if its terms and conditions are not complied with, and the parties continue to act as partners thereafter. Disputable presumptions, such as the validity of private transactions, can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary, and the burden of proof lies with the party invoking them.