SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254760. July 14, 2021.]
TERENCE NG TAN, petitioner, vs.ISMAEL DEL ROSARIO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 July 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254760 (Terence Ng Tan v. Ismael Del Rosario). — Petitioner Terence Ng Tan (petitioner) seeks affirmative relief from the Court via Rule 45 against the Decision 1 dated August 16, 2019 and Resolution 2 dated November 4, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41491. The first affirmed his civil liability in the amount of P286,390.00, as evidenced by the fourteen (14) checks he issued in payment for his purchase of Virgin soft drinks and Asia Brewery products from respondent Ismael Del Rosario (respondent) while the second denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner asserts anew his claim that the amount of P130,000.00, representing the total value of the empty bottles and Yamaha bike which respondent allegedly seized from his possession should be deducted from his total obligation. 3 Otherwise, this would result in unjust enrichment. 4
In refutation, respondent maintains that petitioner merely repleads the same factual issue which the three (3) courts below had already resolved in full. He reiterates that petitioner has invariably admitted the due execution and existence of the fourteen (14) checks in the total amount of P286,390.00 which cover his civil liability.
The petition is utterly devoid of merit.
To be sure, whether petitioner is entitled to a rebate or deduction in the amount of P130,000.00, allegedly representing the total cost of several empty bottles of soft drinks and Yamaha bike which respondent supposedly seized from him is a pure factual issue which is not proper in a petition for review under Rule 45. For the Court is not a trier of facts 5 and does not calibrate anew the evidence proffered by the parties and already passed upon in full by the courts below. Petitioner has not shown that the present case warrants a deviation from this rule.
Indeed, petitioner remains civilly liable notwithstanding his acquittal from the nineteen (19) charges of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. 6 The civil aspect of the cases here was sufficiently proven by preponderance of evidence. 7 Petitioner admitted that he made, issued, and signed the subject fourteen (14) checks which all bounced upon presentment for payment. Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, 8 petitioner's liability in the amount of P286,390.00 representing the face value of the fourteen (14) checks shall be subject to 12% interest per annum from the filing of the Informations on March 31, 2008 until June 30, 2013, and thereafter, 6% legal interest per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Resolution. 9 More, the monetary award shall earn 6% legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 10 TIADCc
ALL TOLD, there is no sufficient showing that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in rendering the assailed issuances as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 16, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41491 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is ordered to pay United Bottler's Dealers the following:
1) The amount of P286,390.00 with 12% interest per annum from the filing of the Informations on March 31, 2008 until June 30, 2013, and 6% interest per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Resolution;
2) The monetary award shall earn 6% interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid; and
3) P29,735.00 as costs of suit.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, M.V., J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Inting, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated January 13, 2021; Lopez, J.Y., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla and Gabriel T. Robeniol, all members of the Special Twelfth Division, rollo pp. 34-42.
2.Id. at 32-33.
3.Id. at 24.
4.Id. at 25.
5.Siasat v. Court of Appeals, 425 Phil. 139, 145 (2002).
6. See Dela Cruz v. People, 792 Phil. 214, 237 (2016), August 3, 2016; See Nissan Gallery-Ortigas, 720 Phil. 840 (2013), as cited in Milanes v. Cosmos Bottling Corp., G.R. No. 232967 (Notice), December 5, 2018.
7.Milanes v. Cosmos Bottling Corp., supra.
8. See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 280-283 (2013) as cited in Khatibi v. People and Lim, G.R. No. 245616, July 29, 2019. See Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Circular No. 799, Series of 2013. See Mandagan v. Valero Corp., G.R. No. 215118, June 19, 2019.
9. See Mandagan v. Valero Corp., supra; See Khatibi v. People, G.R. No. 245616, July 29, 2019.
10.Id.