Case Digest (G.R. No. 190408)
Facts:
Benjie B. Georg represented by Benjamin C. Belarmino, Jr. v. Holy Trinity College, Inc., G.R. No. 190408, July 20, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Benjie B. Georg (through her counsel-brother Atty. Benjamin C. Belarmino, Jr.); respondent is Holy Trinity College, Inc. The Court of Appeals rendered the decision under review in CA-G.R. CV No. 89990; the trial court decision appealed to the Court of Appeals is RTC, Branch 15, Tabaco City, Civil Case No. T-2161 (29 November 2006).The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Agreement with Deed of Assignment (MOA) dated 24 April 2001, whereby petitioner, through her German travel agency, advanced P4,624,705.00 (ticket payments) for an international tour by the Holy Trinity College Grand Chorale and Dance Company (the Group) on the assurance that S.C. Roque Foundation would grant funds and that the Group (represented by Sr. Teresita Medalle and/or her attorney-in-fact Edward Enriquez) assigned the receivable to petitioner. Petitioner paid for domestic and international tickets and later sued when payment was not made.
Petitioner filed an Amended Complaint (15 August 2001) before the RTC, Branch 18, Tabaco City, seeking payment of the MOA amount, damages and fees; summonses were served. Respondent moved to dismiss (14 September 2001). Petitioner sought a writ of attachment (6 November 2001). The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and the attachment petition on 21 April 2003, but later issued a writ of attachment against respondent upon reconsideration (4 August 2005). The court declared default against the foundation-grantor for failure to answer.
At pretrial the parties stipulated certain facts (e.g., Sr. Medalle’s thumbmark on the MOA) and framed issues including whether Sr. Medalle acted as President of Holy Trinity College when she affixed her thumbmark, and whether the doctrines of estoppel or piercing the corporate veil applied. Respondent filed an Answer with Counterclaim denying it was a party to the MOA, alleging Sr. Medalle lacked authority and that her thumbmark was secured without consent.
On 29 November 2006, the RTC, Branch 15, Tabaco City, rendered judgment for petitioner, ordering several defendants (including Holy Trinity College and Sr. Medalle) to pay jointly and severally the equivalent of the MOA amount, interest, attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages, and litigation expenses; the RTC concluded Sr. Medalle acted as President of Holy Trinity College, the Group lacked separate juridical personality, and the doctrine of corporation by estoppel applied.
A writ of execution pending appeal issued on the RTC decision; it was sustained by the Court of Appeals and later affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 180787 (execution matter). Respondent appealed (notice of appeal 9 January 2007) and the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 17 November 2009 (CA-G.R. CV No. 89990), reversed the RTC and absolved Holy Trinity College of monetary liability. The CA reasoned that (a) respondent’s name did not appear on the MOA; (b) petitioner failed to exercise due diligence to verify Enriquez’s authority; (c) Sr. Medalle’s thumbmark was placed while she was hospitalized and possibly incapacitated; and (d) the doctrines of apparent authority or corporation by estoppel did not apply absent proof respondent was complicit or benefited.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for review with this Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals and reinstatement of the RTC judgment. Petitioner challenged (inter ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the Regional Trial Court’s factual findings reviewable and reversible under the recognized exceptions to the rule of finality of factual findings?
- Was the deposition of Sr. Teresita Medalle properly taken and admissible as competent evidence?
- Was Sr. Teresita Medalle’s consent to the MOA vitiated by fraud or incapacity when she affixed her thumbmark?
- Is Holy Trinity College, Inc. bound by the MOA executed by Sr. Medalle—i.e., does apparent authority or corporation by...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)