FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248510. September 9, 2019.]
DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.KENNETH MARK B. TAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 9, 2019which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 248510 (Del Monte Philippines, Inc. v. Kenneth Mark B. Tan)
RESOLUTION
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the January 25, 2019 Decision 2 and the June 27, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 110673 for failure of petitioner Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding its liability for breach of contract and in affirming the order directing petitioner to pay respondent Kenneth Mark B. Tan (respondent) the following amounts: (a) P23,099,633.25 as actual damages, representing the Ex Warehouse Bad Stocks (EWBs) and Bad Orders (BOs); (b) P100,000.00 as attorney's fees; and (c) the cost of suit. However, the Court deems it proper to modify the CA's Decision by imposing legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum on all monetary awards due to respondent, computed from the date of demand, or on February 28, 2013, until June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Resolution. 4 Moreover, the foregoing amounts shall further earn an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. 5
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner was liable for the EWBs and BOs under the distributorship agreement since respondent was able to prove that the products subject thereof had sustained damages before delivery, or that they were in-transit damages, product-related damages or trade BOs. 6 Moreover, records reveal that petitioner never disputed the subject BOs, and it merely denied respondent's claims due to its 0.5% bad order policy, which is clearly violative of the distributorship agreement. 7 It is a basic principle that "a contract is the law between the parties. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. Unless the stipulations in a contract are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, the same are binding as between the parties," 8 as in this case.
Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will not be reviewed on appeal, save for certain exceptions, 9 none of which are obtaining in this case.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 3-65.
2.Id. at 76-87. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
3.Id. at 90-91.
4.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).
5. See Park v. Choi, G.R. No. 220826, March 27, 2019.
6. See id. 81.
7. See id. at 83.
8.Morla v. Belmonte, 678 Phil. 102, 117 (2011).
9.Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012); citations omitted.