G.R. No. 75290. November 04, 1992
AMADO T. GURANGO AND ESTER GURANGO, PETITIONERS, VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND EDWARD L. FERREIRA, RESPONDENTS.
NOCON, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul and
set aside the decision dated March 12, 1986 of the then Intermediate Appellate
Court[1]
reversing the decision of the trial court[2] and
ordering petitioners spouses Amado and Ester Gurango to pay private respondent
Edward Ferreira the sum of P36,000.00 representing the price of the car and
P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees, as well as the Resolution dated July 11, 1986[3] denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration in the appealed
decision.
It appears on record that, on January 26, 1977, private respondent
Edward Ferreira sold to petitioner Amado Gurango one (1) booklet of raffle
tickets valued at Five Hundred (P500.00) Pesos consisting of one hundred (100)
tickets bearing ticket numbers 162501 to 162600 in connection with a
fund-raising project sponsored by the Makati Jaycees to be held in the evening
of April 14, 1977 at the Manila Peninsula Hotel.
At around 10:00 p.m. of April 14, 1977, ticket number 162574 in
the name of Armando “Boyet” Gurango, a minor son of the petitioners,
but in the custody or possession of private respondent, won a Toyota Corolla
car.
Petitioner Amado Gurango alleged that on April 14, 1977, he
issued Check No. 00730 dated April 12, 1977 for the payment of the sixty (60)
raffle tickets in the amount of Three Hundred (P300.00) Pesos. Thereafter, petitioner called his cashier,
Miriam Burgo, and instructed the latter to fill up the stubs of the one hundred
(100) raffle tickets with the names of his family members before surrendering
the same to the messenger of private respondent who would go there to collect
the check for the payment of said raffle tickets.
When petitioner arrived at his office in the afternoon of that
same day, his cashier gave him the one hundred (100) claim stubs and informed
him that the messenger of the private respondent took the check as well as all
the raffle tickets. Thereafter,
petitioner instructed his cashier to keep said claim stubs as he was in a hurry
to return to Cavite City for the induction of the officers and directors of the
Cavite Jaycees.
The following morning or on April 15, 1977, private respondent
called up petitioner Amado Gurango to inform the latter that he had already
paid petitioner’s remaining unpaid balance of Two Hundred (P200.00) Pesos to
the Makati Jaycees the previous night during the raffle and, subsequently,
arranged a meeting with the petitioner for the latter to turnover the forty
(40) claim stubs representing the unpaid balance. During said telephone conversation, petitioner inquired from the
private respondent if any of his tickets won a car during the raffle but was
told by the latter that no Jaycee had won any car in said raffle.
Upon private respondent’s arrival at the office of the
petitioner, the latter inquired again from the former if any of his tickets won
a car to which private respondent answered again in the
negative. When private respondent asked
for the forty (40) claim stubs from the petitioner, the latter informed the
former that he is still willing to honor their previous agreement and even
tendered a check for Two Hundred (P200.00) Pesos dated April 30, 1977 but
private respondent refused to accept said check maintaining that the money he
advanced the previous night will be charged against his company and he only
needs the claim stubs of said tickets to justify said expense.
As petitioner was in a
hurry to finish his income tax return, he handed all the claim stubs to the
private respondent who selected forty (40) claim stubs from the lot
representing the unpaid balance. Thereafter, private respondent asked the petitioner to put down their
agreement into writing which the latter did on a piece of yellow paper and in
his own handwriting, to wit:
“14 April 1977
This is a mutual agreement between Mads Gurango & Ed Ferreira
that they bought a booklet of Raffle Tickets of Makati JC worth P500.00. All the stubs in our possessions remains our
share and any number happened to win in the raffle corresponding to the stub
numbers each one of us is holding will own the prize solely w/o the other party
claims co-ownership, even that the name printed in the such raffle stubs is in
the name of one party or any other person.
(SGD.) (SGD.)
MADS GURANGO EDWARD
L. FERREIRA
Furthermore any holder of the winning stub shall be printed as the
sole winner and owner, even though it was in other’s name.
This is a Gentlemen and Jayceely agreement that both of us will
stick to this simple and binding agreement.
(SGD.) (SGD.)
MADS GURANGO EDWARD L.
FERREIRA”[4]
On April 18, 1977, petitioner was shown a copy of Daily Express
and learned from an item in said newspaper that ticket no. 162574 won a Toyota
Corolla car but was surprised to find out that the winning stub was among those
taken by the private respondent.
That same evening, petitioner attended a meeting of the
Metropolitan Jaycees at the Metro Jaycee Clubhouse and confronted private
respondent about the winning stub. Upon
being shown a copy of their agreement, petitioner realized his mistake in
dating said agreement on April 14, 1977 instead of April 15, 1977 which he
distinctly remembered to be the date said agreement was executed since it was
the last day to file the income tax return but must have erroneously wrote down
the wrong date due to his tight schedule on that day.
On the other hand, private respondent claimed that on April 12,
1977, petitioner informed the former that he is only buying sixty (60) tickets
and offered to return the remaining forty (40) tickets since he needed the
money for the payment of his income tax on April 15, 1977, which was accepted
by the private respondent and the latter agreed to appropriate for himself the
remaining tickets.
Consequently, in the morning of April 14, 1977, petitioner turned
over the one hundred (100) tickets to be dropped in the “tambiolo”
and his check for Three Hundred (P300.00) Pesos for the sixty (60) tickets he
bought from the private respondent.
Upon noticing that all the returned tickets were in the name of
the petitioner Amado Gurango or members of his family, private respondent,
during his meeting with the petitioner at Manila Midtown Ramada Hotel at around
6 p.m. of April 14, 1977, asked the latter to write down their agreement which
petitioner did as shown by the agreement signed by them on April 14, 1977
(Exhibit “A”).
Thereafter, private respondent and petitioner met at the Metro
Jaycee Clubhouse where the former asked the latter to comply with their
agreement but petitioner refused and wrote a letter to the Makati Jaycees
disclaiming said agreement. Eventually,
the car was awarded to petitioners’ son. Subsequent demands by the private respondent to the petitioner to comply
with their agreement were ignored by the
latter.
Consequently, on August
25, 1977, private respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioners
with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XX in Civil Case No.
27163.
After trial on the
merits, a decision was rendered by the Regional Trial Court, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:
“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court dismisses the
complaint, for failure on the part of the plaintiff to have established a cause
of action against the defendants.
“On the counterclaim, the Court orders the plaintiff to pay
the defendants the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as moral damages, and
the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P2,500.00) as and for attorney’s
fees and expenses of litigation. However, the defendants are ordered to reimburse the plaintiff the sum of
Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00), the balance of the price of the forty (40) tickets
paid for by the plaintiff.”[5]
Not satisfied with said decision, private respondent appealed to
the respondent court which reversed the decision of the trial court. The pertinent portion of its decision reads:
“We find therefore and so hold that the agreement (Exh. A or
A-1) was prepared and signed by the parties on April 14, 1977 before the
raffle. Considering the business and
social backgrounds of the parties, Exhibit A or A-1 is the most practical
covenant for their mutual protection before the raffle.
“WHEREFORE,
the decision of the lower court appealed from is hereby REVERSED ordering
defendants-appellees to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of P36,000.00
representing the price of the car and the sum of P5,000.00 as and for counsel
fees. No damages and costs.”[6]
The principal issue presented to Us in the instant case is the
validity of the agreement executed between petitioner and private respondent on
April 14, 1977.
As a rule, only legal questions are reviewable by this Court on
appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals. However, one of the exceptions to the rule is when there is a
conflict in factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court.[7]
Section 9, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court in the
Philippines provides that:
“Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of
an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing
all such terms, and, therefore, there can be, between the party and their
successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement other than
the contents of the writing, except in the following cases:
(a) Where a mistake or imperfection of the
writing, or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the
parties, or the validity of the agreement is put in issue by the pleading;
(b) When there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the
writing.”
Under the aforementioned provision, when the parties have reduced
their agreement in writing, the contents of
said agreement are rendered conclusive upon the parties and evidence aliunde is inadmissible to change a valid and enforceable agreement
embodied in a document. “The mistake contemplated as an exception to the
parol evidence rule is one which is a mistake of fact mutual to the
parties,”[8]
which is not present in this case. Moreover, in view of the parties’ conflicting claims regarding the true
nature of the agreement executed by them, We find the version of the private
respondent more credible for the terms of said agreement are clear and require
no room for interpretation since the intention of the parties, as expressly
specified in said agreement, do not contradict each other.
The fact that the agreement was prepared and written by petitioner
himself further indicates that said agreement was entered into by the parties freely and voluntarily
which renders petitioners’ claim of fraud in the execution of the agreement
unbelievable. Being the author of the
agreement, petitioner is presumed to have actual knowledge of the true intent
of the parties and the surrounding circumstance that attended the preparation
of the document in question including the date when said agreement was
executed. If it is true that the date
of execution was on April 15, 1977, petitioner should have written said date on
the agreement and not April 14, 1977 considering that one does not usually
forget a date that has a special significance to him as alleged by the
petitioner. In the instant case, it is
highly improbable that petitioner’s consent was given through fraud since the
document was prepared and executed by petitioner himself. Therefore, the agreement is valid and
binding upon petitioner and respondent.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the
questioned decision of the appellate court, the petition for certiorari
is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, Regalado, and
Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), on
official leave.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 13-16. Ponente: Justice Leonor Ines Luciano with the
concurrence of Justice Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr., Justice Eduardo P. Caguioa and
Justice Maria Rosario Quetulio-Losa.
[2]
Id., at pp. 18-24. Penned by Judge
Celso L. Magsino.
[3]
Id., at p. 17.
[4]
Id., at pp. 3-4.
[5]
Id., at p. 24.
[6]
Id., at p. 16.
[7]
Co vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 198, 206, citing Raneses vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 187 SCRA 397, and Remolete vs. Tibe, 158
SCRA 138.
[8]
Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 201
SCRA 102 [1991].