Neri v. Yu
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Ryan Roy Yu alleged that he, along with his friends William Matalam and Hsipin Liu, met petitioner Maribelle Z. Neri in Cebu City on June 25, 2007. Neri, claiming to be a business partner of Bridgette Insoy, a seller of Toyota vehicles, convinced Yu and Liu to purchase vehicles from her, offering a group discount. Yu agreed to purchase a Toyota Grandia for P1,200,000.00, which he transferred to Neri's bank account on June 26, 2007. Neri issued a receipt for the payment and promised delivery within a week. Despite repeated assurances and extensions, the vehicle was never delivered, and Neri began avoiding Yu. Procedural History: Respondent Yu filed a complaint for Sum of Money, Damages, Attorney's Fees, Etc. against Neri and Insoy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16 of Davao City. The RTC ruled in favor of Yu, holding Neri and Insoy jointly and solidarily liable for P1,200,000.00 in actual damages, plus moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Neri appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA partially granted the appeal, affirming the P1,200,000.00 liability of Neri and Insoy but deleting the awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The CA subsequently denied Neri's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Maribelle Z. Neri filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision. Neri argued that the acknowledgment receipt did not establish her as the seller of the vehicle, that there was no legal basis to find her a vendor, and that Yu was aware of her role as merely facilitating the payment to Insoy. She contended that the CA gravely abused its discretion in its appreciation of the evidence and its factual findings, particularly in concluding that she acted as a seller rather than a conduit. Neri also questioned the CA's decision for not being clear and distinct in its factual and legal basis.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in holding petitioner Maribelle Z. Neri jointly liable with Bridgette Insoy to respondent Ryan Roy Yu for the amount of Php 1,200,000.00, considering Neri's role as the seller. Whether the acknowledgment receipt conclusively established petitioner Neri as the seller of the vehicle. Whether the CA's decision was based on a misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit. It affirmed the Decision dated August 19, 2016, and the Resolution dated January 25, 2017, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 03495-MIN, holding Maribelle Z. Neri jointly liable with Bridgette Insoy to Ryan Roy Yu for the amount of ₱1,200,000.00, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of joint liability and Neri's role as seller: The Court held that the petition lacked merit as it raised questions of fact, which are generally not reviewable under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court reiterated that factual findings of the appellate courts are final and binding when supported by substantial evidence, unless an exception applies. The Court found that the CA did not err in ruling that Neri was engaged in the business of selling cars and that Yu's group directly transacted with her. Neri's own testimony contradicted her claim of not being a seller, as she admitted receiving payments in her account and issuing an acknowledgment receipt. Her active participation in convincing Yu to buy, offering discounts, providing transportation, and receiving the payment without qualification all pointed to her acting as a seller, not a mere conduit. The Court found her excuse of merely accommodating them by placing orders online incredulous given the millions involved and the lack of prior acquaintance with Yu's group. On the sufficiency of the acknowledgment receipt and Neri's role: The Court found that Neri's participation went beyond merely placing an order online. Her actions, including convincing Yu to buy, offering discounts, providing transportation, and issuing an unqualified acknowledgment receipt for ₱1.2 Million, established her as a seller. The CA correctly concluded that Neri transacted as a seller, not a mere middleman or agent, because she actively negotiated, arranged, and facilitated the purchase. The fact that she offered discounts further supported the conclusion that she was the seller, as a mere conduit would not typically have the authority to offer such incentives. On the alleged misapprehension of facts and grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in its appreciation of the evidence. The CA's findings were supported by the testimonies and records of the case. The Court emphasized that grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or a gross misapprehension of facts, none of which were evident in the CA's decision. Therefore, the Supreme Court found no basis to reverse the appellate court's decision and resolution.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling holding Maribelle Z. Neri jointly liable with Bridgette Insoy to Ryan Roy Yu for the amount of Php 1,200,000.00, finding that Neri acted as a seller and not merely a conduit or agent in the transaction, based on her active participation in convincing the respondent to purchase the vehicle, receiving the payment, issuing an unqualified acknowledgment receipt, and offering discounts.