This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-09-20 |
|||||
| At the outset, it should be stressed that as only the issue of liquidated damages has been elevated to this Court, petitioner Filinvest is deemed to have acquiesced to the other matters taken up by the courts below. Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court states in no uncertain terms that this Court's jurisdiction in petitions for review on certiorari is limited to "questions of law which must be distinctly set forth."[5] By assigning only one legal issue, Filinvest has effectively cordoned off any discussion into the factual issue raised before the Court of Appeals.[6] In effect, Filinvest has yielded to the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming that of the trial court, in deferring to the factual findings of the commissioner assigned to the parties' case. Besides, as a general rule, factual matters cannot be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. This Court at this stage is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts.[7] We do not perceive here any of the exceptions to this rule; hence, we are restrained from conducting further scrutiny of the findings of fact made by the trial court which have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Verily, factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.[8] Thus, it is settled that: (a) Based on Pecorps billings and the payments made by Filinvest, the balance of work to be accomplished by Pecorp amounts to P681,717.58 representing 5.47% of the contract work. This means to say that Pecorp, at the time of the termination of its contract, accomplished 94.53% of the contract work; (b) The unpaid balance of work done by Pecorp amounts to P1,939,191.67; (c) The additional work/change order due Pecorp amounts to P475,000.00; (d) The cost to repair deficiency or defect, which is for the account of Pecorp, is P532,324.02; and (e) The total amount due Pecorp is P1,881,867.66. Coming now to the main matter, Filinvest argues that the penalty in its entirety should be respected as it was a product of mutual agreement and it represents only 32% of the P12,470,000.00 contract price, thus, not shocking and unconscionable under the circumstances. Moreover, the penalty was fixed to provide for actual or anticipated liquidated damages and not simply to ensure compliance with the terms of the contract; hence, pursuant to Laureano v. Kilayco,[9] courts should be slow in exercising the authority conferred by Art. 1229 of the Civil Code. | |||||