8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

1/14

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 112212. March 2, 1998]

GREGORIO FULE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,NINEVETCH CRU a!" #UAN $ELARMINO, respondents.

% E C I S I O N

ROMERO, J .&

This petition for review on certiorari  questions the affirmance by the Court of 

 Appeas of the !ecision"#$

 of the Re%iona Tria Court of San &abo City' (ranch )*'!ismissin% the compaint that praye! for the nuification of a contract of sae of a #*+hectare property in Tanay' Ri,a in consi!eration of the amount of &-*'***.** an! a /.0carat emera!+cut !iamon! 1Civi Case No. S&+/-002. The ower court3s !ecision!ispose! of the case as foows4

56H7R78OR7' premises consi!ere!' the Court hereby ren!ers 9u!%ment!ismissin% the compaint for ac: of merit an! or!erin% paintiff to pay4

#. Defen!ant Dra. Ninevetch ;. Cru, the sum of &)**'***.** as an! formora !ama%es an! the sum of **'***.** as an! for euan (earmino the sum of &/0*'***.** as an! formora !ama%es an! the sum of *'***.** as an! for eacobe. The atter ha! mort%a%e! it earier

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/112212.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/112212.htm#_edn1

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

2/14

to the Rura (an: of Aaminos 1the (an:2' Ba%una' Inc. to secure a oan in theamount of *'***.**' but the mort%a%e was ater forecose! an! theproperty offere! for pubic auction upon his !efaut.

In >uy #-' petitioner' as corporate secretary of the ban:' as:e! Remeia Dichoso

an! Oiva ;en!o,a to oo: for a buyer who mi%ht be intereste! in the Tanayproperty. The two foun! one in the person of herein private respon!ent Dr. NinevetchCru,. It so happene! that at the time' petitioner ha! shown interest in buyin% a pair of emera!+cut !iamon! earrin%s owne! by Dr. Cru, which he ha! seen in >anuary of thesame year when his mother eacobe so! the property to petitioner for &0'***.**. The haste with which the two !ee!s were e

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

3/14

 As pre+arran%e!' petitioner eft Atty. (earmino3s resi!ence with Dichoso an!;en!o,a an! hea!e! for the ban:' arrivin% there at past 04** p.m. Dr. Cru, asoarrive! shorty thereafter' but the cashier who :ept the other :ey to the !eposit bo< ha!area!y eft the ban:. Dr. Cru, an! Dichoso' therefore' oo:e! for sai! cashier an!foun! him havin% a haircut. As soon as his haircut was finishe!' the cashier returne! to

the ban: an! arrive! there at 04- p.m.' ahea! of Dr. Cru, an! Dichoso who arrive! at0400 p.m. Dr. Cru, an! the cashier then opene! the safety !eposit bo

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

4/14

 After tria' the ower court ren!ere! its !ecision on ;arch ' #. Confrontin% theissue of whether or not the %enuine pair of earrin%s use! as consi!eration for the saewas !eivere! by Dr. Cru, to petitioner' the ower court sai!4

5The Court fin!s that the answer is !efinitey in the affirmative. In!ee!' Dra. Cru,

!eivere! 1the2 sub9ect 9eweries 1sic2 into the han!s of paintiff who even raise! thesame nearer to the i%hts of the obby of the ban: near the !oor. 6hen as:e! by Dra.Cru, if everythin% was in or!er' paintiff even no!!e! his satisfaction 1Hearin% of 8eb./-' #2. At that instance' paintiff !i! not protest' compain or be% for a!!itiona time toe

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

5/14

price' nor is there a stipuation %ivin% the ven!or the ri%ht to uniateray rescin! thecontract the moment the ven!ee fais to pay within a fi

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

6/14

they were ivin% un!er a pa of !oubt. Surey' this affecte! not ony theirearnin% capacity in their practice of their respective professions' but aso theysuffere! besmirche! reputations. Dra. Cru, runs her own hospita an!!efen!ant (earmino is a we respecte! e%a practitioner.

The en%th of time this case !ra%%e! on !urin% which perio! their reputation were1sic2 tarnishe! an! their names mai%ne! by the pen!ency of the case' the Court is of the beief that some of the !ama%es they praye! for in their answers to the compaintare reasonaby proportionate to the sufferin%s they un!erwent 1Art. //#' New CiviCo!e2. ;oreover' because of the fasity' maice an! baseess nature of the compaint!efen!ants were compee! to iti%ate. Hence' the awar! of attorney3s fees is warrante!un!er the circumstances 1Art. //*' New Civi Co!e2.? "G$

8rom the tria court3s a!verse !ecision' petitioner eevate! the matter to the Court of  Appeas. On October /*' #/' the Court of Appeas' however' ren!ere! a!ecision"$affirmin% in toto the ower court3s !ecision. His motion for reconsi!eration

havin% been !enie! on October #' #)' petitioner now fies the instant petitionae%in% that4

5I. TH7 TRIAB COERT 7RR7D IN DIS;ISSIN@ &BAINTI883S CO;&BAINT AND INHOBDIN@ THAT TH7 &BAINTI88 ACTEABBL R7C7IV7D A @7NEIN7 &AIR O87;7RABD CET DIA;OND 7ARRIN@1S2 8RO; D787NDANT CREM < <

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

7/14

Court3s 9uris!iction is ony imite! to reviewin% errors of aw in the absence of anyshowin% that the fin!in%s compaine! of are totay !evoi! of support in the recor! or that they are %arin%y erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of !iscretion. "##$

Nonetheess' this Court has to cosey !eve into petitioner3s ae%ation that theower court3s !ecision of ;arch ' # is a 5rea!y+ma!e? one because it was han!e!

!own a !ay after the ast !ate of the tria of the case. "#/$ &etitioner' in thisre%ar!' fin!s it incre!ibe that >u!%e >. Ausberto >aramio was abe to write a #/+pa%e sin%e+space! !ecision' type it an! reease it on ;arch ' #' ess than a !ayafter the ast hearin% on ;arch G' #. He stresse! that >u!%e >aramio repace!>u!%e Sava!or !e @u,man an! hear! ony his rebutta testimony.

This ae%ation is obviousy no more than a !esperate effort on the part of petitioner to !ispara%e the ower court3s fin!in%s of fact in or!er to convince this Court to reviewthe same. It is noteworthy that Atty. (earmino carifie! that >u!%e >aramio ha! issue!the first or!er in the case as eary as ;arch ' # or two years before the ren!ition of the !ecision. In fact' Atty. (earmino terminate! presentation of evi!ence on October 

#)' #' whie Dr. Cru, finishe! hers on 8ebruary -' #' or more than a month prior to the ren!ition of the 9u!%ment. The ;arch G' # hearin% was con!ucte! soey for the presentation of petitionerPs rebutta testimony."#)$ In other wor!s' >u!%e >aramio ha!ampe time to stu!y the case an! write the !ecision because the rebutta evi!encewou! ony serve to confirm or verify the facts area!y presente! by the parties.

The Court fin!s nothin% anomaous in the sai! situation. No proof has beena!!uce! that >u!%e >aramio was motivate! by a maicious or sinister intent in!isposin% of the case with !ispatch. Neither is there proof that someone ese wrote the!ecision for him. The imme!iate ren!ition of the !ecision was no more than >u!%e>aramio3s compiance with his !uty as a 9u!%e to 5!ispose of the court3s businessprompty an! !eci!e cases within the require! perio!s.? "#-$ The two+year perio! within

which >u!%e >aramio han!e! the case provi!e! him with a the time to stu!y it an!even write !own its facts as soon as these were presente! to court. In fact' this Court!oes not see anythin% wron% in the practice of writin% a !ecision !ays before thesche!ue! promu%ation of 9u!%ment an! eavin% the !ispositive portion for typin% at atime cose to the !ate of promu%ation' provi!e! that no maice or any wron%fu con!uctatten!s its a!option."#0$ The practice serves the !ua purposes of safe%uar!in% theconfi!entiaity of !raft !ecisions an! ren!erin% !ecisions with promptness. Neither can>u!%e >aramio be ma!e a!ministrativey answerabe for the imme!iate ren!ition of the!ecision. The acts of a 9u!%e which pertain to his 9u!icia functions are not sub9ect to!iscipinary power uness they are committe! with frau!' !ishonesty' corruption or ba!faith."#G$ Hence' in the absence of sufficient proof to the contrary' >u!%e >aramio is

presume! to have performe! his 9ob in accor!ance with aw an! shou! instea! becommen!e! for his cose attention to !uty.

Havin% !ispose! of petitioner3s first contention' we now come to the core issue of this petition which is whether the Court of Appeas erre! in upho!in% the vai!ity of thecontract of barter or sae un!er the circumstances of this case.

The Civi Co!e provi!es that contracts are perfecte! by mere consent. 8rom thismoment' the parties are boun! not ony to the fufiment of what has been e

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

8/14

stipuate! but aso to a the consequences which' accor!in% to their nature' may be in:eepin% with %oo! faith' usa%e an! aw. "#$ A contract of sae is perfecte! at the momentthere is a meetin% of the min!s upon the thin% which is the ob9ect of the contract an!upon the price."#$ (ein% consensua' a contract of sae has the force of aw between thecontractin% parties an! they are e

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

9/14

same. To invai!ate a contract' mista:e must 5refer to the substance of the thin% that isthe ob9ect of the contract' or to those con!itions which have principay move! one or both parties to enter into the contract.? "/0$ An e

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

10/14

e

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

11/14

base!' such in!emnity cou! not be outri%hty awar!e!. The same ho!s truewith respect to the awar! of e

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

12/14

to the e

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

13/14

DI@7ST

8ue v. CA

8acts4

@re%orio 8ue' a ban:er an! a 9eweer' offere! to se his parce of an! to Dr. Cru, ine

8/9/2019 31. FULE v. CA

14/14

earier !eivere! the Tanay property to Dr. Cru, by affi