Sarmiento v. Yu
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Amalio L. Sarmiento (Sarmiento) was the prime contractor for the Cainta River Floodway and Manggahan Floodway Systems. He entered into a sub-contract with Emilio G. Samson (Samson) for a portion of the work. Samson, lacking sufficient finances, convinced Celerino Yu (Yu), the respondent, to join him in a partnership venture where Yu would provide capital and be reimbursed by Sarmiento through the partnership, with profits to be shared equally. Their agreement was not reduced to writing. Yu and Samson opened joint bank accounts. After the Cainta Floodway Project was completed, they were to collect P400,000.00 from Sarmiento. However, Sarmiento insisted on starting the Manggahan Floodway Project, costing P22 million, requiring additional capital from Yu and Samson. They opened more bank accounts and designated Herminio Estrella as bookkeeper. In 1982, Estrella discovered Samson failed to deposit two checks totaling P700,000.00 received from Sarmiento. Yu withdrew P638,000.00 from their joint account, after which Samson took exclusive control of project operations. Procedural History: Yu filed a complaint for Sum of Money and Liquidation of Partnership with Damages against Samson and Sarmiento. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Yu, ordering Samson to pay Yu P2,251,811.42 (reimbursable expenses, partnership share, and collectibles from Sarmiento), P100,000.00 for moral damages, P50,000.00 for exemplary damages, and P100,000.00 for attorney's fees. The RTC found that a partnership existed between Yu and Samson, and that Sarmiento's claims remained uncontradicted as Sarmiento opted not to present evidence. Samson and Sarmiento appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC judgment in its entirety. The Petition: Sarmiento filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. He argued that the CA erred in finding that collectibles were due from him, specifically P400,000.00 for the Cainta River Project and P2,228,643.56 for the Manggahan Floodway Schedule 'B,' claiming Yu presented no evidence and that Yu's complaint admitted no claim against Sarmiento.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that collectibles are due from petitioner Sarmiento. Whether the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are reviewable by the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals with modification, ordering the trial court to determine the exact amounts collectible from petitioner Sarmiento in favor of respondent Yu. Costs were against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether collectibles are due from petitioner Sarmiento: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals' finding that collectibles are still due from petitioner Sarmiento is not bereft of proof. While petitioner Sarmiento claimed that respondent Yu did not present any evidence, the records show that Sarmiento opted not to present any evidence himself. Consequently, Yu's evidence as to the amounts still owing from Sarmiento remained uncontradicted. The Court cited the testimony of Patrick Gatan of the Ministry of Public Highways regarding Sarmiento's submission of a Summary of Accomplishment indicating 75.03% completion of the Manggahan Project, which was sub-contracted to Samson for P22 million. This computation, along with the P400,000.00 collectible from the Cainta Project, formed the basis of the claim. The Court also noted Samson's testimony, which, while not precise on amounts, did not deny the existence of collectibles from Sarmiento. The Court reiterated that the right of the plaintiff (Yu) to be reimbursed for cash investment and to be paid his share in the partnership assets and collectibles from Sarmiento was sufficiently established. On the issue of reviewability of Court of Appeals' findings of fact: The Supreme Court reiterated the general rule that findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are not reviewable by the Supreme Court, as it is not a trier of facts. However, an exception exists when such findings are not sustained by evidence. In this case, the petitioner raised this exception, arguing that the CA's findings lacked basis. The Court found that the CA's findings were indeed supported by the evidence presented before the trial court, particularly the uncontradicted testimony of Yu and the documentary evidence regarding project completion and sub-contract amounts. Since Sarmiento failed to present evidence to rebut Yu's claims, the appellate court's conclusion that collectibles were due from Sarmiento was deemed valid and supported by the evidence on record.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals' findings of fact are generally not reviewable by the Supreme Court, except when such findings are not sustained by evidence. In this case, the petitioner failed to present evidence to rebut the respondent's claims regarding collectibles due from the petitioner, rendering the respondent's evidence uncontradicted.