UNIVERSAL MOTORS V CA & VERENDIA, GALICIA

Issues to be raised on appeal

FACTS:

Respondents bought Mercedes Benz trucks from Petitioners. They defaulted in payment. They issued a promissory note but they still failed to complete their payment. After repeated demands, Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of unpaid balance. Respondents in their Answer with Counterclaim admitted the principal allegations of the Complaint, except that they insisted that their outstanding account was only the amount of P28,911.10 not 74K.

Petition for summary judgment by Petitioner denied. Both parties failed to appear during the hearing thus Petitioner was allowed to present evid ex-parte upon motion. Judgment was in favor of Petiitoner.

On April 8, 1968, after re-hearing the case on motion filed by private respondent Rafael Verendia, the court rendered a decision which reiterated the first judgment by the court.

CA: reversed trial court. Dismissed the complaint and ordered Universal Motors to return amount in excess of the amount due to them.MR denied

Petitioner raises the following grounds: CA erred in a) allowing Respondents to make a complete turnabout by denying liability when they have already admitted that they are liable b) in allowing change in defense without amending their pleadings c) not holding respondents estopped d) in exonerating respondents e) that respondents overpaid petitionr and f)that the appeal of one of the respondents have inured to the benefit of the other respondents who did not appeal

ISSUE:

Won the issues presented by Petitioners are within the exceptions where the Supreme Court can review on appeal the final and conclusive findings of fact of the Court of Appeals

HELD:

Denied.

Jurisprudence dictates that as a rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal, provided, they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence. However, this rule admits of certain exceptions, as when the findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; or the appellate court's findings are contrary to those of the trial court. Absence any proof that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand for the Supreme Court is not expected or required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties.