THELMA FERNAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND WHITE GOLD INCORPORATED; STEPHEN SY, VICTOR SY AND MELANIO DEJINO, RESPONDENTS.

Fernan versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is the case of Thelma Fernan, who sued the operators and officers of the White Gold Department Store in Cebu City for damages after she was detained and questioned on suspicion of shoplifting. She invoked the Civil Code provisions on human relations, particularly Articles 19, 20 and 21. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's classic statement on the finality of the Court of Appeals' factual findings, and on the power of that court to reverse its own earlier decision on a motion for reconsideration.

Procedural History

Fernan filed her complaint for damages in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The trial court rendered judgment in her favor, awarding her 54,000 pesos in damages and attorney's fees, with costs, relying on the Civil Code provisions on human relations.

The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court initially affirmed the trial court's decision. On a motion for reconsideration, however, the Court of Appeals reversed itself and dismissed Fernan's complaint.

Fernan then elevated the case to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari under Rule 45, assigning a single error: that the Court of Appeals had reconsidered its own decision of affirmance and reversed on the same grounds it had earlier considered and rejected.

Facts

Near noontime on June 29, 1968, Fernan, her brother and sister and some friends dropped in at the White Gold Department Store to shop. Fernan carried a wallet similar in description to those on display at the store's card and wallet counter. Leonora Alcantara, the salesgirl manning that counter, noticed the similarity, suspected the wallet had been taken from the display, and reported her suspicions to her superiors.

What followed is disputed. According to Fernan, she heard Victor Sy, the store's treasurer, shout "Dakpa na," meaning arrest her. Melanio Dejino, a store supervisor, then rushed to her side and held her by the arms. Despite her protests, she was dragged into a room where Dejino took the wallet she was holding and gave it to Sy, who examined it and found it contained money, stamps and a mirror. She was questioned, and she maintained she had bought the wallet from the same store days earlier. Alcantara was summoned and, after some reflection, confirmed Fernan's claim. Only then was Fernan allowed to leave, having been physically detained for fifteen to twenty minutes.

The respondents told a different story: that the matter was handled courteously; that Alcantara found two wallets missing after Fernan left her counter without a word; that Dejino politely asked Fernan about the wallet; that she willingly went to the guest room and proved her ownership; and that Alcantara apologized after recalling she had sold the wallet to Fernan days before.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals may reverse its own initial decision of affirmance upon a motion for reconsideration.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court may review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals where they conflict with those of the trial court.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, as cited in the decision, defines the scope of review by certiorari:

Sec. 4. Mode of review; assignment of errors. — The appeal shall be by a petition for review on certiorari, which shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment, and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth.

This provision confines the Supreme Court's review to questions of law, which is why the Court declined to re-examine the facts found by the Court of Appeals.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that every court has the power, and indeed the duty, to review and amend or reverse its findings and decisions when its attention is timely called to any error or defect therein. The Court of Appeals' reconsideration and reversal did not transform its findings of fact into conclusions of law reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Court quoted its recent ruling in Luzon Brokerage Corporation versus Court of Appeals:

It goes without saying, however, that every court has the power and indeed the duty to review and amend or reverse its findings and decisions when its attention is timely called to any error or defect therein.

On the second issue, the Court held that review of the factual findings of the Court of Appeals is not a function it ordinarily undertakes, such findings being as a rule binding and conclusive. While a conflict between the findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court is a recognized exception, it must be invoked only with great circumspection and upon a clear showing that manifestly correct findings have been unwarrantedly rejected. The Court found no gross or extraordinary misperception or manifest bias in the appellate court's reading of the evidence. It also noted, parenthetically, that the criminal complaint for grave coercion, illegal detention, unlawful arrest and slander arising from the same incident had been dismissed by the City Fiscal of Cebu for lack of a prima facie case.

Doctrine

A court has the power and the duty to reverse its own findings and decisions when its attention is timely called to an error or defect therein; such a reversal does not convert findings of fact into conclusions of law. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court, and review is confined to questions of law under Rule 45, Section 4. The exception for conflicting findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals applies only upon a clear showing of gross or extraordinary misperception or manifest bias.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs. The respondents prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: every court has the power and the duty to reverse its own findings when its attention is timely called to an error, and such a reversal does not turn findings of fact into questions of law. Examiners use this case to test the finality of Court of Appeals factual findings and the narrow exceptions to Rule 45 review.