SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241508. February 13, 2019.]
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.THIRD PARTY CLAIMANT LIQUIDATOR DANILO L. CONCEPCION AND SPOUSES EULOGIO O. YUTINGCO AND WONG BEE KUAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 February 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241508 — Development Bank of the Philippines versus Third Party Claimant Liquidator Danilo L. Concepcion and Spouses Eulogio O. Yutingco and Wong Bee Kuan
After reviewing the instant Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals' (CA) assailed Decision 1 dated March 27, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated August 16, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 144527, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for failure of petitioner Development Bank of the Philippines (petitioner DBP) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error that warrants the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
It is manifestly evident from the submissions of petitioner DBP that it is primarily raising questions of fact. A question of facts exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation. 3
It is unmistakably clear that in the instant Petition, the Court is being asked by petitioner DBP to re-weigh the evidentiary value of the various pieces of evidence on record and to make a re-assessment as to the veracity and credibility of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented during trial in order to reverse the RTC's 4 and the CA's factual finding that the subject property was improperly attached as it was not owned by the respondents Spouses Eulogio O. Yutingco and Wong Bee Kuan (respondents Sps. Yutingco) at the time of attachment. A catena of cases has consistently held that questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal viacertiorari before the Court and are not proper for its consideration. 5 The Court is not a trier of facts. It is not the Court's function to examine and weigh all over again the evidence presented in the proceedings below. 6 CAIHTE
In any case, after a careful review of the records of the instant case, the Court finds that there is no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the RTC and the CA. As correctly held by the RTC and the CA, at the time of the attachment of the subject property on January 14, 1998, the subject property was owned by Nikon Industrial Corporation and not the respondents Sps. Yutingco. Properties that may be subject to preliminary attachment refer to properties owned by the adverse party. 7 It must be stressed that the sole defendants in Civil Case No. 97-2653 are the respondents Sps. Yutingco.
SO ORDERED. (HERNANDO, J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 89-104. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring.
2.Id. at 106 to 106-A.
3.Caiña v. People, 288 Phil. 177, 182-183 (1992).
4. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 146.
5.Bautista v. Puyat Vinyl Products, Inc., 416 Phil. 305, 309 (2001), citing Hi-Precision Steel Center, Inc. v. Lim Kim Steel Builders, Inc., 298-A Phil. 361, 372 (1993) and Navarro v. Commission on Elections, 298-A Phil. 588, 593 (1993).
6.Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 426 Phil. 104, 110 (2002).
7. RULES OF COURT, Rule 57, Sec. 1.