Dueñas v. Guce-Africa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Alice Guce-Africa entered into a Construction Contract with petitioner Engr. Apolinario Dueñas in January 1998 for the demolition of her ancestral house and construction of a new four-bedroom residential house for ₱500,000.00, with a completion deadline of March 31, 1998, to be ready for her sister's wedding on April 18, 1998. Respondent paid petitioner ₱550,000.00 in total. However, the house remained unfinished by the wedding date, causing inconvenience to respondent and her family. Respondent filed a Complaint for breach of contract and damages, alleging that petitioner started the project without a permit, abandoned the project, and performed substandard work. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 157, Pasig City, ruled in favor of the respondent, finding petitioner negligent and liable for breach of contract. The RTC ordered petitioner to pay respondent ₱100,000.00 for repairs, ₱200,000.00 for completion, and ₱50,000.00 for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, deleting the award for attorney's fees. The RTC found that petitioner failed to deliver the house on the stipulated date, unjustifiably incurred delay, and negligently abandoned the unfinished structure, resulting in substandard workmanship and exposure of the structure to the elements. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA decision. He argued that the costs of actual damages were speculative, that the rulings on abandonment and delay were contrary to evidence, and that damages from rainwater were not his fault.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can review factual findings regarding breach of contract and negligence in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Whether the award of actual damages for repair and completion of the house was supported by sufficient evidence. Whether respondent is entitled to temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with modification, deleting the award of actual damages and ordering petitioner to pay respondent temperate damages in the amount of ₱100,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reviewing factual findings under Rule 45: The Court reiterated that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, not fact. It cannot review or pass upon factual matters, such as the weight and probative value of evidence, unless exceptional circumstances exist, none of which were present in this case. The Court emphasized that the determination of breach of contract and negligence are factual matters. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals, especially when they affirm those of the RTC, are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court. The Court cited Fong v. Velayo to distinguish questions of law from questions of fact, stating that if an issue requires an examination of the probative value of evidence, it is a question of fact. On the entitlement to actual damages: The Court agreed with the petitioner that the award of actual damages for the repair (₱100,000.00) and completion (₱200,000.00) of the house lacked evidentiary proof. Article 2199 of the Civil Code requires that actual damages must be duly proved with reasonable certainty. The Court held that reliance solely on the testimonies of the respondent and her witness, without documentary proof such as receipts, is insufficient to establish actual damages. The Court cited Ong v. Court of Appeals for the principle that actual damages must be susceptible of measurement and supported by competent proof of the actual amount of loss. On the award of temperate damages: The Court found that while respondent sustained damages due to petitioner's breach, she failed to present competent proof of the exact amount of pecuniary loss. Therefore, the Court ruled that respondent is entitled to temperate damages under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, which allows recovery when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. The Court deemed an award of ₱100,000.00, equivalent to 20% of the original contract price and one-third of the claimed actual damages, to be just and reasonable under the circumstances.
Main Doctrine
In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Court generally cannot pass upon factual matters, as it is not a trier of facts. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the RTC are conclusive and binding, unless exceptional circumstances exist. Actual damages must be proven with reasonable certainty, supported by documentary proof; otherwise, temperate damages may be awarded when pecuniary loss is suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty.