SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232856. November 29, 2021.]
SPOUSES BENEDICT C. ROLDAN AND CRYSTALYN ROLDAN, petitioners, vs.SPOUSES ANASTACIO V. AVENDAÑO AND ERLINDA AVENDAÑO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 November 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 232856 (Spouses Benedict C. Roldan and Crystalyn Roldan v. Spouses Anastacio V. Avendaño and Erlinda Avendaño.) — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision 2 dated October 28, 2016 and the Resolution 3 dated July 17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 100913. The CA affirmed the Decision 4 dated December 7, 2012 of Branch 206, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City in Civil Case No. 08-062 for Specific Performance and/or Damages filed by Spouses Anastacio and Erlinda Avendaño (respondents) against Spouses Benedict (Benedict) and Crystalyn (Crystalyn) Roldan (collectively, petitioners). 5
The Antecedents
In an instrument denoted as "Contract of Agreement" 6 dated July 23, 2007, Benedict undertook to construct the house of respondents for the contract price of P660,000.00. Under the said agreement, Benedict was to supply labor and supervise the construction of the house; whereas respondents would provide all the materials needed for the construction. Respondents religiously paid the contract price until their total payment reached the amount of P560,000.00. 7
Upon turnover on December 18, 2007, respondents noted several defects on the constructed house which Benedict admitted upon inspection. In a letter, Benedict committed to repair the defects and requested respondents to issue a postdated check in the amount of P100,000.00 covering the "retention payment" or the balance of the contract price, as well as the "additional works" respondents requested. However, Benedict allegedly failed to return to the constructed house for the repairs. Accordingly, respondents withheld the balance of the contract price. 8
Subsequently, respondents sent another letter reiterating their demand for Benedict to make good the defects on the house. In response, Crystalyn insisted that Benedict had fully and faithfully complied with his contractual obligation. She attributed the non-completion of the construction of the house to respondents' demand for additional works and the withholding of the balance of the contract price. Consequently, the failure of the parties to come to an agreement prompted respondents to institute an action for breach of contract with damages before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Brgy. Cupang. However, petitioners failed to appear. Since petitioners still failed to make the necessary repairs, respondents filed a complaint before the RTC. 9
In refuting the allegations against them, petitioners asserted that respondents owed them the retention amount of P100,000.00 and another amount of P157,120.52 representing the costs for additional works done on the house. Petitioners also prayed for payment of moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00. 10
On July 7, 2009, an ocular inspection of the house was conducted by a five-member committee composed of the parties' respective counsels and chosen engineers, and a legal researcher of the RTC. Petitioners' chosen engineer submitted a report stating that the defects noted by respondents would only entail the amount of P91,454.13 for repairs. On the other hand, respondents' chosen engineer stated that the defects noted on the house were substantial, warranting the amount of P1,349,175.04 as costs for repairs. 11
The RTC Ruling
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision 12 dated December 7, 2012 in favor of respondents. It disposed of the case thus:
WHEREFORE, the Court rules as follows:
l. [Petitioner] Benedict Roldan is directed to correct, within one year and at his own expense, the [defects] in the house of the [respondents][.]
xxx xxx xxx.
2. [Petitioner] Crystalyn Roldan is directed to reimburse the respondents] in the amount of Php5,500.00;
3. [Petitioner] Benedict Roldan is directed to pay the [respondents] the amount of Php50,000.00 as moral damages and Php50,000.00 as attorney's fees;
4. The [respondents] are directed to pay [petitioner] Benedict Roldan the amount of Php100,000.00 for the balance of the contract price once the repairs are done, and also the amount of Php102,268.35 for the additional works introduced in the house.
SO ORDERED. 13
Petitioners then appealed 14 to the CA and faulted the RTC for the following errors: first, failing to take into consideration Benedict's testimony that the defects rioted on the house were already repaired; second, giving credence to the report and testimony of respondents' engineer on the defects noted during the ocular inspection of the house; third, limiting the amount awarded to petitioners for the additional works requested by respondents to P102,268.35, instead of 8157,120.52; fourth, ordering the retention of the balance of the contract price in the amount of P100,000.00, pending the completion of the repairs; and last, ordering the payment of moral damages and attorney's fees to respondents. 15
The CA Ruling
In its Decision 16 dated October 28, 2016, the CA denied petitioners' appeal and ruled that they are liable for the defects in the constructed house of respondents, thus:
GIVEN ALL OF THESE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated December 7, 2012 of the lower court is AFFIRMED. 17
In affirming the RTC Decision, the CA gave weight to Benedict's letter expressly admitting the defects stated in the reports of the parties' chosen engineers. 18 Like the RTC, the CA underscored Benedict's admission in his judicial affidavit that he failed to repair the substantial defects of the house, i.e., "leakage in the sink due [to poor fitting and installation]; imperfect grousing of wall tiles; different colors of floor tiles; sewerage clogging; unsatisfactory installation of PVC doors; stains on the ceilings, unfinished plastering at the toilet and bath; nail marks on the walls; corners that do not fit neatly and accordingly; and cracked or damaged steps of stairs."19 Thus, the CA found the retention by respondents of the balance of the contract price in the amount of P100,000.00 as justified pending the repairs to be made by Benedict. Also, the CA sustained the findings of the RTC that respondents are liable to Benedict for the amount of P102,265.35 covering the additional works done on the house. Lastly, the CA agreed with the RTC that respondents are entitled to payment of moral damages and attorney's fees. 20
Petitioners moved for reconsideration 21 to no avail. 22
Hence, the instant petition before the Court essentially echoing the errors previously attributed to the RTC.
Issue
Whether the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit.
The petition merely reiterates the factual issues and arguments raised by petitioners in their appeal which had already been squarely addressed by the CA. The findings of the RTC which were affirmed by the CA, i.e., the substantial defects noted in the house of respondents upon turnover, petitioners' liability therefor, and the propriety of the amount for additional works ordered by the RTC to be paid to petitioners, are essentially factual inasmuch as the Court is being asked to re-examine the evidence on record and assess anew the testimonies of witnesses given before the RTC. These questions of fact requiring a re-evaluation of the evidence are inappropriate in a petition for review on certiorari filed with the Court. 23
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari and resolved by the Court. Not being a trier of facts, the Court will not review the factual findings of the lower tribunals as these are generally binding and conclusive. 24 While there are recognized exceptions, 25 none of them applies in the case. Accordingly, the Court sees no compelling reason to depart from the following congruent findings of the RTC and the CA, as follows:
[I]t stands undisputed that upon the delivery of the two-storey house to [respondents], they already noticed the detects complained of (leakage in the sink due [to poor fitting and installation]; imperfect grouting of wall tiles; different colors of floor tiles; sewerage clogging: unsatisfactory installation of PVC doors; stains on the ceilings; unfinished plastering at the toilet and bath; nail marks on the walls; corners that do not fit neatly and accordingly; and cracked or damaged steps of stairs) and immediately notified [petitioner] Benedict of such defects. [Petitioner] Benedict claims that he had already repaired such defects. However, as admitted in his Judicial Affidavit, [petitioner] Benedict only repaired the following defects: "doors with large spaces; remains of the cement that were not cleaned; droplets of cement that remain[ed] in the wall; non-removal of the barracks; garbage left in the surroundings, floorings in the first floor, not in good condition since cement were [sic] left.
It must also be noted that at the time of the second ocular inspection on July 7, 2009 or barely two years after the delivery of house to [respondents], such defects and deficiencies complained of still existed as can be gleaned from the testimonies and reports of Engrs. Ame and Joaquin, albeit the latter stated that the defects complained of were very minor. 26
It bears underscoring that a five-member committee was formed by the RTC to conduct an ocular inspection of the constructed house to determine the defects adverted to by respondents in their complaint against petitioners. Petitioners' chosen engineer himself confirmed the defects, assessing the amount of P91,454.13 for the necessary repairs. 27 As unanimously found by the RTC and the CA, the construction defects described in detail in the respective reports of the parties' engineers were even admitted by petitioner Benedict. 28
Petitioners' liability for the defects is based on Article 1167 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which reads:
Article 1167. If a person obliged to do something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost.
This same rule shall be observed if he does it in contravention of the tenor of the obligation. Furthermore, it may be decreed that what has been poorly done be undone.
This obligation is reflected in the warranty provision 29 of the parties' contract whereby petitioner Benedict, as a contractor, undertook to correct, at his own expense, any defects in the work due to faulty workmanship.
Following the failure of petitioners to fully comply with their obligation to correct the defects in the constructed house, respondents were justified in withholding the amount of P100,000.00 representing the balance of the contract price. Suffice it to state that the contract for the construction of respondents' house bears the features of reciprocal obligations, 30i.e., respondents' obligation to pay in full the contract price is conditioned on petitioners' undertaking to complete the works so stipulated.
Lastly, the award of moral damages and attorney's fees is warranted.
Moral damages are recoverable where a party acts fraudulently, in bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his/her contractual obligations thereby constituting a breach of contract. 31 Here, the RTC found that petitioners repeatedly ignored respondents' pleas for the repair of their house. As affirmed by the CA, petitioners' wrongful act or omission caused respondents serious anxiety and mental anguish, the latter having received a newly built house heavily laden with substantial defects. 32 Similarly, the award of attorney's fees is warranted as respondents were compelled to litigate to protect their interests against petitioners' repeated refusal to make good the construction defects on the house. 33
In fine, the CA did not err in affirming the ruling of the RPC for being in accordance with relevant laws and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated October 28, 2016 and the Resolution dated July 17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100913 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 12-35.
2.Id. at 48-64; penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Pedro B. Corales, concurring.
3.Id. at 86-88:
4.Id. at 692-725; penned by Judge Patria A. Manalastas-De Leon.
5.Id. at 64.
6.Id. at 846-851.
7.Id. at 50-51.
8.Id. at 51-52.
9.Id. at at 53-54.
10.Id. at 54-55.
11.Id. at 55.
12.Id. at 692-725.
13.Id. at 724-725.
14.Id. at 749-750.
15.Id. at 57.
16.Id. at 48-64.
17.Id. at 64.
18.Id. at 58.
19.Id. at 58-59.
20.Id. at 61-63.
21.Id. at 65-76.
22.Id. at 13.
23. See Tenazas v. R. Villegas Taxi Transport, 731 Phil. 217, 228 (2014), citing J Marketing Corp. v. Taran, 607 Phil. 414, 424-425 (2009), further citing Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 477 Phil. 205-213 (2004).
24.Id.
25. These exceptions are: (1) when the conclusion is a finding 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 a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact 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; and (10) the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. See Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 182-183 (2016), citing Medina v. Macario Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225, 232 (1990).
26.Rollo, pp. 58-59. (Emphasis supplied.)
27.Id. at 55.
28.Id. at 58.
29. The warranty provision reads:
The Contractor shall correct, at its own expense, any defects in the [w]ork occurred under normal conditions, within the scope of work completed, due to faulty materials and/or workmanship pursuant to this Contract for a period of 1 year from the date of [f]ull [c]ompletion. Such corrections shall be provided at the earliest date possible. See id. at 848.
30. Civil Code, Art. 1169 reads:
xxx xxx xxx
In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins.
31.Philippine National Bank v. Sps. Rocamora, 616 Phil. 369, 385 (2009); citing Civil Code, Art. 2220.
32.Rollo, p. 63.
33. Civil Code, Art. 2208 reads:
In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs cannot be recovered except:
xxx xxx xxx.
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[.]