SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 216760. September 16, 2015.]
NILDA SALCEDO, petitioner, vs. IRIGA TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 September 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 216760: NILDA SALCEDO v. IRIGA TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC.
This case involves an individual who owes a telephone company amounts accumulating to more than half a million pesos in unpaid telephone bills from long-distance calls.
On March 9, 1994, Nilda Salcedo (Salcedo) subscribed to Iriga Telephone Company, Inc. 1 She availed herself of the long-distance services to make and receive phone calls to and from Japan where her husband worked. 2 From March 11, 1998 to July 10, 1998, Salcedo accumulated P579,124.27 in telephone bills. 3 She did not completely settle the obligation. She was only able to pay P2,396.16 on May 29, 1998 and P5,000.00 on June 29, 1998 as partial payment for her telephone bills. This reduced her obligation to P571,728.11. 4
On July 8, 1998, Iriga Telephone Company, Inc. sent Salcedo a demand letter 5 for her to settle her outstanding liabilities. Salcedo failed to pay. Hence, Iriga Telephone Company, Inc. filed a Complaint 6 for sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City.
Salcedo filed an Answer 7 denying her liability. During trial, Iriga Telephone Company, Inc. put one of its billing clerks on the witness stand. The billing clerk identified the statements of account relating to Salcedo's unpaid telephone bills. She explained that Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) provided a detailed statement of incoming calls to Salcedo's account, and Iriga Telephone Company, Inc. simply acted as the collecting agent of PLDT. According to PLDT's statement, Salcedo received calls from Japan three to four times a day. 8
Salcedo and her husband also took the witness stand. They both denied the frequency of such calls. According to Salcedo, there were only two to three calls in a month. 9 In addition, it was her husband who placed the calls from Japan with the use of prepaid telephone cards. 10
However, during the testimony of the husband, he admitted that he had been receiving calls from and making calls to Salcedo's Iriga landline number frequently. 11
After weighing the evidence presented by the parties, the Regional Trial Court ruled 12 in favor of Iriga Telephone Company, Inc. Accordingly:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, decision is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant who is ordered to pay the plaintiff the following amounts:
1. P571,728.11 representing arrearages for telephone services rendered;
2. P20,000.00 as attorney's fees;
3. P6,000.00 as appearance fee for the six (6) actual hearing dates; and
4. The costs of this suit.
In addition, the total amount adjudged shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this decision becomes final until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 13
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed 14in toto the Decision of the Regional Trial Court and denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Salcedo. 15
Salcedo now comes to this court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari. 16 She questions whether there was enough evidence to support a finding of her liability against Iriga Telephone Company, Inc., and whether the Regional Trial Court's Decision imposed the correct legal interest rates. 17 ATICcS
Considering that the first issue raised by Salcedo involves a factual question, this court will no longer disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals. As this court articulated in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank, et al., 18 the only instances when this court reviews the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are:
(1) [W]hen the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) 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; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 19
Salcedo only argues that the Court of Appeals misappreciated facts. 20 However, she did not provide enough basis for such allegation.
Despite the Court of Appeals' findings of fact attaining finality, the award of attorney's fees and costs of suit should be deleted because the Regional Trial Court did not provide a basis for such award in its Decision. "The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule and the court must state explicitly the legal reason for the award of attorney's fees." 21 Hence, without a legal reason as enumerated under Article 2208 22 of the Civil Code, this court cannot sustain the award of attorney's fees.
In addition, the award of legal interest must be adjusted to conform with this court's ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames. 23
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with modification the Decision dated June 27, 2014 and Resolution dated January 28, 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No. 98863. The award of attorney's fees, appearance fee, and costs of suit is DELETED. Petitioner Nilda Salcedo is only liable to P571,728.11 representing her unpaid telephone bills, and interest payment of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
(Mendoza, J., on leave; Peralta, J., designated acting member per S.O. No. 2170 dated September 10, 2015.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 62, Memorandum of Agreement.
2. Id. at 65-78, Statement of Account, 135, Regional Trial Court Decision, 140, Regional Trial Court Decision.
3. Id. at 63, Summary of Accounts Receivable.
4. Id. at 63, Summary of Accounts Receivable, and 90-91, Official Receipts.
5. Id. at 64.
6. Id. at 47-49.
7. Id. at 53-55.
8. Id. at 133, Regional Trial Court Decision.
9. Id. at 135.
10. Id. at 134.
11. Id. at 135.
12. Id. at 132-141. The Decision, dated April 12, 2012, was penned by Judge Timoteo A. Panga, Jr.
13. Id. at 140-141.
14. Id. at 35-43, Court of Appeals Decision. The case, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 98863 and dated June 27, 2014, was penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ramon A. Cruz of the Court of Appeals, Sixth Division.
15. Id. at 45-46, Resolution dated January 28, 2015.
16. Id. at 11-30.
17. Id. at 18, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
18. 642 Phil. 547 (2010) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
19. Id. at 556-557.
20. Rollo, p. 17.
21. Car Cool Philippines, Inc. v. Ushio Realty Development Corporation, 515 Phil. 376, 386 (2006) [Per J. Carpio, Third Division].
22. Article 2208.
In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.
23. G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].