Case Digest (G.R. No. 135657)
Facts:
Jose V. Lagon v. Hooven Comalco Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 135657, January 17, 2001, the Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Jose V. Lagon is the owner of a commercial building in Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat; respondent Hooven Comalco Industries, Inc. (HOOVEN) is a domestic manufacturer and installer of aluminum materials with a Davao branch. In April 1981 the parties executed two contracts (both captioned "Proposal") under which HOOVEN agreed to sell and install various aluminum materials in Lagon’s building for a total contract price of P104,870.00; Lagon made an advance payment of P48,000.00.
On 24 February 1987 HOOVEN sued Lagon in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City for sum of money with damages and attorney’s fees, alleging deliveries and installations totaling P117,329.00 of which P69,329.00 remained unpaid. HOOVEN presented its OIC and employees as witnesses and introduced proposals, invoices and delivery receipts. Lagon denied liability, counterclaimed for various damages, and asserted that HOOVEN failed to deliver and install some materials and that he had already paid for those delivered.
At the parties’ joint request the RTC conducted an ocular inspection of the premises on 9 October 1987 to verify installed materials. The RTC found actual deliveries and installations valuing P87,140.00, deducted the P48,000.00 advance, and held Lagon liable for P39,140.00; but it also sustained Lagon’s counterclaims and awarded him P26,120.00 actual damages, P30,000.00 attorney’s fees, and P45,534.50 litigation expenses, resulting in a net award against HOOVEN. The RTC rendered its decision on 26 August 1991.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision of 28 April 1997 the CA set aside the RTC judgment, found for HOOVEN, and ordered Lagon to pay P69,329.00 with 12% interest from filing, 15% attorney’s fees and costs. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in disregarding the trial court’s ocular inspection and factual findings?
- Were all the materials claimed by HOOVEN delivered and installed so as to make Lagon liable for P69,329.00?
- Were awards of moral damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses appropriat...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)