Case Digest (G.R. No. 147970)
Facts:
PCL Industries Manufacturing Corporation v. The Court of Appeals and Asa Color & Chemical Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 147970, March 31, 2006, First Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court. The petition for certiorari (styled as a Rule 65 petition) sought reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision of February 21, 2001 and its May 9, 2001 denial of reconsideration, which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 226.On October 10, 1995, Asa Color & Chemical Industries, Inc. (private respondent / plaintiff in the RTC) filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against PCL Industries Manufacturing Corporation (petitioner / defendant in the RTC). Private respondent alleged that between January 18 and April 14, 1994 petitioner purchased ink materials worth P504,906.00 payable within 30 days, but failed, in bad faith, to pay despite repeated demands. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment; petitioner moved to dissolve it on October 23, 1995, but the trial court denied the motion on November 20, 1995 and denied a motion for reconsideration on January 2, 1996. Petitioner did not seek further judicial relief on the attachment orders at that time.
Petitioner filed an answer with a counterclaim dated October 30, 1995, alleging that inks delivered (including earlier deliveries in 1993) were defective and had been returned as shown by transmittal slips; it claimed consequential damages of P1,592,794.50 from customer rejections allegedly caused by the inks. After trial, the RTC rendered judgment on January 8, 1999 in favor of plaintiff awarding P504,906.00 plus 20% interest from April 1994, 25% attorney’s fees, and costs, and dismissed petitioner’s counterclaim for insufficiency of evidence. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon‑Magtolis (with Regino and Guevara‑Salonga, JJ., concurring), affirmed the RTC on February 21, 2001, finding sufficient evidence of petitioner’s intent to defraud for purposes of attachment and concluding petitioner failed to prove the inks were the source of the alleged bad smell or resulting damages. Petitione...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the petition filed under Rule 65 be treated as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45?
- Was the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment by the trial court proper under Rule 57, Section 1(d) (and related grounds)?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion or misapprehend facts in affirming the RTC’s judgment on the merits—specifically in concluding petitioner contracted the debt with fraudulent intent and in rejecting petitioner’s claim ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)