Manguiob v. Velasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Felimon Manguiob (Manguiob) and Alejandra Velasco (Velasco) entered into a partnership named "Baculin Enterprises" for the purchase and sale of agricultural and forest products and the operation of a general merchandise store. Velasco provided the capital, including the warehouse and store, while Manguiob managed the operations. The partnership ceased operations and was considered dissolved on September 14, 1994. Procedural History: Velasco filed a complaint against Manguiob for sum of money, accounting, and damages, alleging that the partnership's actual cash on hand did not reflect its apparent profitability. An audit report showed a net profit of at least ₱252,673.50, and Velasco claimed her 60% share, plus the return of her capital investment, alleging Manguiob failed to account for funds and used partnership funds for his personal business. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Velasco, ordering Manguiob to pay ₱498,245.52 plus interest and attorney's fees. Manguiob appealed, arguing the RTC erred in its computation of the amounts due, the interest, and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC decision, ordering Manguiob to pay ₱401,640.97 with interest, and deleted the award of attorney's fees. Manguiob moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Manguiob then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to deduct the value of non-cash assets from his obligation. The Petition: Manguiob argued that the Court of Appeals erred in not considering the non-cash assets of the partnership, valued at ₱215,559.06 by the parties' accountants, which he claimed were in Velasco's custody and control. He sought to have this amount deducted from his obligation to Velasco.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can consider the value of non-cash assets in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, when such issue was not timely raised in the lower courts. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its computation of the amount due to Velasco.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with a modification regarding the amount Manguiob is obliged to pay Velasco. The Court ruled that the issue of deducting the value of non-cash assets is a question of fact, which cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and is beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition. However, the Court modified the monetary award based on its own computation using figures already established in the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of considering non-cash assets: The Supreme Court held that the issue of whether the value of non-cash assets should be deducted from Manguiob's obligation is a question of fact. Such an issue requires a review and evaluation of evidence, and potentially the reception of new evidence, which is impermissible in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court emphasized that Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, where the doubt arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, not as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Furthermore, the Court noted that this issue was not timely raised in the proceedings before the trial court, and issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as doing so would be barred by estoppel and violate basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process. The Court cited Binay v. Odeña and Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals to support its position. On the computation of the amount due to Velasco: The Supreme Court found that while the Court of Appeals' computation was generally correct, it contained a slight error. The Court agreed with the RTC's finding that Velasco's capital contribution was ₱400,000.00 and her 60% share in the net profit of ₱191,999.98 was ₱115,199.92. However, the Court noted that Velasco herself admitted, through documentary evidence and her memorandum, that she retained ₱116,954.40 from the proceeds of copra sales on September 10, 1994. Applying this figure, the Court recalculated the net amount due to Velasco as ₱400,000.00 (capital) + ₱115,199.92 (share in profits) - ₱116,954.40 (retained proceeds) = ₱398,245.52. The Court also affirmed the Court of Appeals' deletion of attorney's fees and the rate of interest.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to questions of law and does not allow for the examination of the probative value of evidence or the reception of new evidence, especially concerning factual matters like the distribution of non-cash assets of a dissolved partnership, which were not timely raised in the lower courts.