PEDRO S. LIMJOCO, SR., JOSE LIMJOCO, WILLY CASTOR AND JOSE FOZ, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND AURORA COPIACO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to reverse the
decision* of the Court of Appeals in CA GR No. 28809-CV dated 6
February 1992 entitled “Aurora I. Copiaco versus Pedro Limjoco, et.
al.”

The case before us
involves certain “pakiao” contracts for the repair and maintenance of the Tarlac
Right Earthdike located in Paniqui, Tarlac which is under the administrative supervision and control of
the Agno River Flood Control System of the then Bureau of Public Works (now Department of Public Works and
Highways).

It is not disputed that private respondent, Aurora Copiaco a licensed public works contractor,
was awarded the above-mentioned “pakiao” contracts on 27 February
1978. She filed a complaint against herein petitioners in the Regional Trial Court
of Pasig alleging that she had entered into an informal partnership (joint
venture) with herein petitioners with the agreement that:

1.     
They would jointly undertake the project subject of the
“pakiao” contracts.

2.     
Petitioner Pedro Limjoco, Sr. would personally manage,
supervise and attend to the project.

3.     
All expenses incurred
in the undertaking of the project shall be properly evidenced by
receipts and documents.

4.     
Upon completion of the project, Limjoco, Sr. would render a
formal accounting.

5.     
The net proceeds, after deducting the cost of the project, would be divided equally,
with 50% going to Aurora Copiaco and
the other 50% to the petitioners.

Aurora Copiaco prayed in her complaint that after trial, the
defendant (herein petitioner) Pedro Limjoco, Sr. be ordered to render a true and correct formal accounting as manager
of the Joint Venture Agreement and to pay damages and costs of suit.

In his answer, Pedro Limjoco, Sr. denied having entered into any
joint venture agreement with Aurora Copiaco. Limjoco alleged that Aurora Copiaco had sub-contracted or assigned the
“pakiao” contracts to him after he paid Copiaco a total of
Three Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P375,000.00) representing
Twenty-Five Percent (25%) of the total consideration of the contracts.

Neither Copiaco nor Limjoco, Sr. was able to show any written
agreement to support their respective allegations.

The evidence for Aurora Copiaco consists of her testimony, that
of Engineer Justo N. Pablico of the Bureau of Public Works and of Romeo Dizon,
a journalist.

Aurora Copiaco testified that as owner of AIC Construc­tion,
several “pakiao” contracts for the repair and maintenance of the
Tarlac Right Earthdike were awarded to her on 27 February 1978 by the Director
of Public Works represented by Justo N. Pablico. The “pakiao” contracts were presented and marked as
Exhibits “A” to “A-17” for the plaintiff Copiaco. She further stated that she entered into a joint venture agreement with Pedro
S. Limjoco, Sr. to jointly undertake the project.^[1] To
refute the allegation of Limjoco that the “pakiao” contracts were assigned or
subcontracted to him by Copiaco, the latter presented a letter signed by Justo
N. Pablico of the Bureau of Public Works, dated 14 June 1978 addressed to the
Regional Auditor of the Agno Flood Control System stating that according to
records of the office, AIC Construction is the registered contractor of the
project subject of the “pakiao” contracts and that his office is not
aware that the project has been subcontracted,^[2] and a
certification signed by Assistant Regional Auditor Vicente M. Victor stating
that he had inspected and verified the repair and maintenance work on the
Tarlac Right Earthdike which is under contract to AIC Construction, represented
by Aurora I. Copiaco.^[3]

Copiaco further testified that Limjoco, Sr. even submit­ted an
informal partial accounting^[4] and
that she had issued on 28 and 29
June 1978 two (2) checks^[5] to
Pedro Limjoco, Sr. for the total amount of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P150,00.0.00) and additionally paid Limjoco Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos
(P75,60.00) on 2 August 1978^[6] which
amounts represented expenditures for the project^[7] in
relation to the alleged joint venture.

To support her claim for damages, Copiaco presented an affidavit
dated 14 July 1978 executed by Pedro S. Limjoco, Sr.,^[8] the
contents of which allege that he (Limjoco) had a verbal agreement with Aurora
I. Copiaco to be paid twenty-five percent (25%) of the total amount of the
contract which is
One Million Five Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand Pesos
(P1,533,000.00). Limjoco stated that,
in accordance with their verbal contract, he repaired and maintained the described
dike defraying all expenses for labor and materials. It was further alleged in the affidavit that Copiaco contrary to
their agreement directly collected from the Agno River Control Office the sum
of over P600,000.00 without his (Limjoco’s) knowledge, which amount rightfully
belongs to him (Limjoco) as the sub-contractor. This affidavit became the basis of complaints for estafa filed by
Limjoco against Aurora I. Copiaco and
of news items published in the Evening Post on 24 August 1978.^[9]
Copiaco alleged that the complaints filed by Limjoco as well as the news
items which were published about estafa cases against her caused a
“tremendous setback” in her business, destroyed her business credit
and made the government hesitant to award any new contracts to her.^[10]

Defendants, Pedro Limjoco, Sr., Jose Limjoco, Willy Castor and
Jose Foz, on the other hand, denied having entered into any joint venture
agreement with Aurora I. Copiaco involving the “pakiao” contracts.

The defense also attempted to impeach Copiaco’s credi­bility by presenting evidence that she
was in fact married to Alfredo
Copiaco on 14 April 1978 as shown by the Certificate of Live Birth of their daughter.^[11]
However, Aurora I. Copiaco, in her testimony, had stated that she was single.^[12]

To refute the
allegation of Copiaco that there was a joint
venture agreement entered into, the defendants presented the testimony of Aurora I. Copiaco herself as the
defendant in a complaint filed by Pedro T. Limjoco, Jr. for a sum of money, where she stated that Mr.
Pedro Limjoco, Sr. was a foreman in her (Copiaco’s) project in the Tarlac Right Earthdike.^[13]

The defendants likewise presented a general voucher^[14]
and an Affidavit executed by
Aurora I. Copiaco^[15]
which were used by the latter in
collecting part of the proceeds for the project from the Department of Public
Works.

Also presented were letters from Justo N. Publico,^[16]
the Daily Accomplishment Reports
for the Tarlac Right Earthdike Project
from 1 January 1978 up to 25 June 1978,^[17] as well as general vouchers and
certificates of acceptance^[18] all of which were presented by the
defendants to prove that it was
Pedro S. Limjoco who repaired and maintained the Tarlac Right Earthdike
Project.

The case in the trial court was left undecided by Judge Rafael de la
Cruz.* The Judiciary Planning Development and
Implementation Office (JPDIO) of the Supreme Court withdrew the case from the trial court in Pasig
and Assisting Judge Ildefonso E. Gascon was assigned to dispose of the case pursuant to
Administrative Order No. 26-90 issued by the Supreme Court on 16 February 1990.

On 2 April 1990, Judge Gascon rendered a decision the dispositive part
of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered:

1.) 
Ordering defendants to
submit a proper accounting of the expenses and expenditures of the project
adverted to with proper receipts and documents;

2.)   
Ordering the defendants to account for the proceeds
representing the balance of the 81% collected by the plaintiff;

3.)   
To pay the plaintiff jointly and severally P250,000.00 moral
damages;

4.)   
To pay the plaintiff P100,000.00 for exemplary damages;

5.)   
To pay the plaintiff by way of attorney’s fees P100,000.00;

6.)   
Dismissing defendants’ counterclaim;

7.)   
Defendants to pay costs of suit.”^[19]

Herein petitioners
appealed the trial court decision to the
Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision “subject to the
elimination of the aforesaid damages and attorney’s fees.”^[20] Their motion for reconsideration was denied
on 18 May 1992 and the present petition for review was filed on 5 June 1992.

The petitioners raise the
following alleged errors of the
respondent Court:

“I. x x x PRIVATE RESPONDENT
AURORA COPIACO SHOULD RETURN OR REFUND THE P698,000.28 TO PETI­TIONER PEDRO
LIMJOCO, SR.

II. (IN) ORDERING PETITIONERS TO SUBMIT A PROPER ACCOUNTING OF THE EXPENSES
AND EXPENDITURES OF THE PROJECT ADVERTED TO WITH PROPER RECEIPTS AND DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF, HEREIN PRIVATE RESPONDENT.

III. (IN) ORDERING THE DEFENDANTS (HEREIN PETITIONERS) TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
PROCEEDS REPRESENTING THE BALANCE OF THE 81% COLLECTED BY THE PLAINTIFF (HEREIN
PRIVATE RESPONDENT).

IV. (IN) ORDERING PETITIONERS TO PAY THE COSTS OF SUIT.”^[21]

There are basically two
(2) factors to be considered in
determining the merits of this
case on appeal, namely:

1.     
The Assisting Judge from the JPDIO who rendered the decision
of the trial court was not the judge who heard the case on the merits; and

2.     
The petitioner
and the private respondents failed to present any written contract or agreement
to support their respective
allegations.

The respondent Court of Appeals correctly observed that:

“A careful perusal of the records on hand indicate a variance
of facts between the [private respondent’s] version on one hand, and that of
the [petitioner’s] on the other. Obviously, it is (private respondent’s) word against the [petitioner’s],
and vice-versa.

Moreover, it is observed that the evidence presented on both sides
is rather weak x x x.”^[22]

The conclusion drawn by the Court of Appeals from the above observations to the effect that
–

“x x x in cases
such as this, the Court is constrained to rely on the sound judgment of the
lower court in appreciating the evidence adduced before it. Well settled is the rule in both criminal
and civil cases that in the matter of proper appreciation of evidence both real
and testimonial the findings of the trial court are given great and accorded
the highest respect by the appellate court (citations omitted).”^[23]

cannot however be upheld considering that
the judge who decided the case
in the trial court was not the judge who
conducted the hearings. He was
unable to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while they were on
the stand.

A re-examination of the records of this case was indis­pensable
in trying to determine the true agreement between the parties.

The trial court in ruling against the existence of an assignment
or sub-contracting to petitioner, Pedro Limjoco, Sr. correctly took into
account the absence of any receipt to show that herein petitioner had paid private
respondent Copiaco in consideration of the alleged assignment or
sub-contract. The other evidence
presented by the peti­tioners, while tending to prove the extent of the work
they completed, do not in any way support their contention that the project
was assigned to them.

On the other hand, private respondent Aurora L. Copiaco was able
to show that the “pakiao” contracts were awarded to AIC Construction
which she owned. It was also shown that
petitioner Pedro S. Limjoco, Sr. received a total of Two Hundred and
Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P225,000.00) from private respondent Copiaco. The amount represented expen­ditures for the
project. It should be noted that Pedro
S. Limjoco, Sr. failed to successfully deny or refute his receipt of the
aforementioned amount. Finally, private
respondent Aurora I. Copiaco was able to obtain certificates that the
“pakiao” contracts awarded to AIC Construction had not been assigned or subcontracted.

The preponderance of evidence in this case clearly leans to the
existence of the joint venture (informal partnership) between the parties.

WHEREFORE, premises considered the petition for review is
DENIED and the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED
with costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, Nocon, and Puno, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Justice Segundino G.
Chua with Justices Santiago M. Kapunan and Luis L. Victor concurring.

^[1]
TSN, 8 February 1980, pp. 10-12

^[2]
Exhibit “C”

^[3]
Exhibit “D”

^[4]
Exhibit “E”

^[5]
Exhibits “F” and “G”

^[6]
Exhibit “H”

^[7]
TSN, 8 February 1980, pp. 35-43

^[8]
Exhibit “J”

^[9]
Exhibit “K”

^[10]
TSN, 8 February 1980, pp. 58-61

^[11]
Exhibit “3”

^[12]
TSN, 8 February 1980, p. 2

^[13]
Exhibit “2-A”

^[14]
Exhibit “4”

^[15]
Exhibit “5”

^[16]
Exhibits “10”, “12”
and “13”

^[17]
Exhibits “14” to
“14-RRRRRRR”

^[18]
Exhibits “17” to “17-EE”

* Presiding Judge, Branch
160, Pasig, M.M.

^[19]
Original Records, pp. 399-400

^[20]
Rollo, p. 33

^[21]
Rollo, p. 134

^[22]
Rollo, p. 32

^[23]
Rollo, pp. 32-33