SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221194. July 25, 2016.]
THE METRO ASIA CHEF GROUP COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. DATU SHARIFF ZAIN L. GANDAMRA, DATU CAMID B. GANDAMRA III, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated25 July 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221194 (THE METRO ASIA CHEF GROUP COMPANY, INC., petitioner, v. DATU SHARIFF ZAIN L. GANDAMRA, DATU CAMID B. GANDAMRA III, ET AL., respondents).
We decide the motion for reconsideration 1 filed by petitioner Metro Asia Chef Group Company, Inc., challenging the April 20, 2016 resolution 2 of this Court which denied its petition for review on certiorari3 for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the May 11, 2015 decision 4 and the October 16, 2015 5 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 102221.
The Antecedent Facts
On May 21, 2008, the petitioner filed a complaint for damages against respondents Datu Shariff Zain L. Gandamra, et al., before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 166, Pasig City, for alleged intimidation and extortion of money. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit in a decision 6 dated September 26, 2013.
On appellate review, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC decision. In its decision dated May 11, 2015, the CA held that: first, the petitioner failed to prove that the respondents employed intimidation to extort money from it; second, the testimony of Mary Anne Rifareal (Rifareal), the petitioner's only witness, is self-serving and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence; and third, the demand letter dated May 6, 2008 contained no intimidating or menacing threats; it only informed the petitioner that if no amicable settlement is reached, then a lawsuit would be forthcoming.
The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied its motion in a resolution dated October 16, 2015. Following the denial, the petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Court on December 14, 2015. The Court denied the petition in a resolution dated April 20, 2016 for lack of merit.
On June 14, 2016, the petitioner filed the present motion for reconsideration, praying that its petition for review on certiorari be given due course and that judgment be rendered ordering the respondents to pay damages as follows: P30,000.00 as actual damages, P250,000.00 as exemplary damages, P250,000.00 as attorney's fees, and P50,000.00 as expenses of litigation.
In its motion, the petitioner argues that the CA misapprehended and failed to consider certain facts which, had they been given probative weight, would have proven that the respondents intimidated, threatened, and harassed the petitioner, thereby warranting the award of damages in its favor.
The Court's Ruling
We deny the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
The Court's jurisdiction in Rule 45 petitions is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law that might have been committed by the lower court; 7 questions of fact, as a rule, cannot be entertained. 8 It is only in exceptional circumstances that the Court will consider reviewing questions of fact. 9
For a question to be one of law, it must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants before the trial court. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. 10
In the present case, the issue raised by the petitioner is purely factual; its resolution demands the examination of the evidence presented by the parties. On this ground, the petition should be denied, as the petitioner failed to show any exceptional circumstance to warrant the Court's review of factual questions that have already been settled by the lower courts.
In any case, a review of the records shows that the petitioner failed to establish its allegations of threat, harassment, and intimidation against the respondents which would entitle it to an award of damages.
First, Rifareal's testimony is not sufficient to prove the petitioner's claim, considering that it was uncorroborated by clear and convincing evidence. In addition, it appears that the petitioner's settlement arrangement with the respondents was voluntarily and freely offered by the former as a sign of its goodwill to compensate for the latter's bad experience with the restaurant. Notably, Rifareal, too, could not name the person who had allegedly threatened to destroy the petitioner's reputation by involving the media and the National Bureau of Investigation in the dispute. CAIHTE
Second, contrary to the petitioner's assertions, the demand letter dated May 6, 2008 from the respondents' counsel does not show proof of the alleged threats, harassment, or intimidation amounting to extortion. The respondents' counsel merely notified the petitioner that if no amicable settlement is reached, then a lawsuit would inevitably follow.
We likewise note that the petitioner filed the complaint for damages before the RTC without first terminating its exploratory talks with the respondents regarding the terms of the settlement, and after it had been notified that the latter would file a lawsuit if the negotiations failed. It is apparent, therefore, that the petitioner's complaint is nothing but an anticipatory action or, more appropriately, an anticipatory defense against an expected suit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Metro Asia Chef Group Company, Inc. for lack of substantial argument. The May 11, 2015 decision and the October 16, 2015 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 102221 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 103-108.
2. Id. at 102.
3. Id. at 10-30.
4. Id. at 33-39. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, and concurred in by Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan.
5. Id. at 41-42.
6. Id. at 51-60. Penned by Presiding Judge Rowena De Juan-Quinagoran.
7. Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. People, G.R. No. 170618, November 20, 2013, 710 SCRA 358, 364-365, citing Remalante v. Tibe, G.R. No. L-59514, February 25, 1988, 158 SCRA 138, 144.
8. See Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Banas, G.R. No. 184116, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 157, 165.
9. Id., citing New City Builders, Inc. v. NLRC, 499 Phil. 207, 212-213 (2005).
10. Leoncio v. De Vera, G.R. No. 176842, February 18, 2008, 546 SCRA 180, 184; citing Binay v. Odeña, G.R. No. 163683, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 248, 255-256.