FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219926. June 6, 2019.]
CU KING PENG AND LUCIE YOUNG PENG, petitioners, vs.SPS. AVELINO AND JENNYLEN T. LEE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 6, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219926 (CU KING PENG and LUCIE YOUNG PENG, Petitioners, v. SPS. AVELINO and JENNYLEN T. LEE, Respondents.) — After a judicious review of the records, the Court DENIES this petition from the May 12, 2015 decision 1 and August 13, 2015 resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 102690 whereby the CA affirmed with modification the November 4, 2013 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 42, Manila in Civil Case No. 04-109750, for failure of the petitioners to show any reversible error committed by the CA in ordering the rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the petitioners and the respondents.
In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, We limit our jurisdiction to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. As a matter of sound practice and procedure, the Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts. To do otherwise would defeat the very essence of Rule 45 and would convert the Court into a trier of facts, which is not its intended purpose under the law. 3 HTcADC
Although there are recognized exceptions 4 to the above rule, the petitioners failed to substantially prove that their cause merit our attention.
Finding no cogent reason to reverse the CA, We therefore affirm the assailed decision and resolution.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition; AFFIRMS the decision and resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 102690 promulgated on May 12, 2015 and August 13, 2015, respectively; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.
The petitioners' manifestation informing the Court of the death of Atty. Ismael Estella, that they never changed counsel and requesting that all notices, orders, resolutions and other papers be furnished to Atty. Simplicio M. Virtudazo, Jr. of S.M. Virtudazo, Jr. Law Firm at Suite 5B, 5th Floor, Electra House Building, 115 Esteban cor. V.A. Rufino Streets, Legaspi Village, Brgy. San Lorenzo, 1229 Makati City; and the respondents' second motion to resolve with manifestation of grave concern, praying that the pending petition be resolved with the least possible delay, are both NOTED. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."Carandang, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 55-72; penned by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) with the concurrence of Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon.
2.Id. at 74-77.
3.Heirs of Teresita Villanueva v. Heirs of Petronila Syquia Mendoza, G.R. No. 209132, June 5, 2017.
4. The exceptions are: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (c) When there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) When the findings of facts are conflicting; (f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (g) When the CA's findings are contrary to those by the trial court; (h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Spouses Andrada v. Pilhino Sales Corp., G.R. No. 156448, February 23, 2011)