Case Digest (G.R. No. 133803)
Facts:
In Bienvenido M. Casino, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and Octagon Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 133803, September 16, 2005, the Supreme Court Third Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court, resolved petitioner Bienvenido M. Casino, Jr.'s Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari seeking annulment of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated January 21, 1997 and Resolution dated May 20, 1998.On October 2, 1991, Octagon Realty Development Corporation (respondent) filed a complaint for rescission of contract with damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City against petitioner Bienvenido M. Casino, Jr., owner of Casino Wood Parquet and Sanding Services. The complaint alleged that the parties had executed a December 22, 1989 contract for the supply and installation of narra wood parquet covering 60,973 sq. ft. for P1,158,487.00, with full delivery due May 1990 and a 40% downpayment of P463,394.50. Respondent alleged that petitioner delivered only 26,727.02 sq. ft., was delayed in delivering the remainder, misrepresented his qualifications and financial capacity, and compelled respondent to engage another contractor (Hilvano Quality Parquet and Sanding Services) at a cost of P1,198,609.30; respondent sought rescission, actual damages (P912,452.39), reimbursement (P1,198,609.30), moral damages, and attorney's fees.
Petitioner admitted the contract and the downpayment but asserted modifications in the schedule, blamed respondent for failing to prepare suitable premises for installation (thereby preventing timely deliveries), claimed delivery of 29,209.82 sq. ft., and asserted unpaid billings of P105,425.68. Petitioner counterclaimed for rescission and payment and pleaded various affirmative defenses including waiver, estoppel and that respondent's extrajudicial rescission was void.
The RTC, in a decision dated June 2, 1994, found petitioner in breach and upheld respondent's extrajudicial rescission under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, awarding respondent P2,111,061.69 as actual and compensatory damages and P50,000 as attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47702 issued a Decision on January 21, 1997 affirming the RTC but modifying the damages to P1,662,003.80 with legal interest; following cross-motions for reconsideration, the CA in its Resolution of May 20, 1998 denied petitioner’s motion and, upon granting respondent’s motion in part, amended its earlier judgment to “affirm in toto” the RTC decision (thereby restoring the RTC award)....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45 review, may the Court disturb the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals in this case?
- Did respondent validly rescind the contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code because of petitioner’s alleged breach?
- Were the awards of actual/compensatory damages and attorney’s fees legally justified and proven with the...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)