SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247598. March 14, 2022.]
SOLITA HERNANDEZ MILLAR, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE, ALBEA'S HAIRCUTTERS, petitioner,vs. CUT & FIX INTERNATIONAL SALON CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 March 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247598 (Solita Hernandez Millar, doing business under the name and style, Albea's Haircutters v. Cut & Fix International Salon Corporation). — The Court NOTES the letter dated February 15, 2022 of Ms. Jane G. Sabido, Chief, Archives Section, Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals (CA), Manila transmitting the CA rollo, original records, Transcript of Notes, and others in CA-G.R. CV No. 109770.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated October 31, 2018 and Resolution 3 dated May 17, 2019 of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 109770 for failure of petitioner Solita Hernandez Millar (petitioner) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that she was bound by the terms and conditions of the franchise agreement with respondent CUT & FIX International Salon Corporation (respondent).
As correctly ruled by the CA, despite petitioner's failure to sign the franchise agreement, her conduct — from receipt of the document, lack of protest, payment of the franchise fee, and operation of the hair salon franchise — were indicative of her intention to be bound by the terms and conditions of the same. The CA also correctly ruled that petitioner was already estopped from denying that she was bound by the written franchise agreement. Section 2 (a) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that 'whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.' In this case, petitioner's conduct subsequent to the receipt of the franchise agreement had led respondent to believe that she had intended to abide by its terms. Thus, she cannot be allowed to go against her own actions and omissions to the prejudice of respondent. 4 CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 16-38.
2.Id. at 43-52, Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now retired member of this Court) with Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now members of this Court), concurring.
3.Id. at 54-55.
4. See Rockland Construction Company, Inc. v. Mid-Pasig LandDevelopment Corporation, 567 Phil. 565, 571 (2008).