658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caoile vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 106929. September 21, 1993.

ANITA CAOILE and ERLINDA GATCHALIAN,

petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and SOLEDAD
F. DE JESUS, respondents.

Civil Law; Agency; An agent who signed the receipt as a

witness but never received the alleged amount is not liable.—Both
the Court of Appeals and the private respondents placed undue
emphasis and reliance upon the word “agent” typed below the
signature of the

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

659

VOL. 226, SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 659

Caoile vs. Court of Appeals

petitioner in the receipt in question. The trial court, however,

observed and concluded that: “It was the defendant Caoile who
prepared the receipt for P61,000.00. According to defendant
Gatchalian, she was asked by the defendant Caoile to sign the
said receipt for P61,000.00 as a witness thereof. Defendant
Gatchalian did not sign any other receipts.” There is as well no
evidence to show that it was Gatchalian who received the
P61,000.00. That Soledad did not include Gatchalian as a co-
respondent of Anita in the estafa case and did not demand
reimbursement from Gatchalian before filing Civil Case No. 86-
36543 are strong indications that the latter never received
anything on account of the subject transaction.
Same; Findings of fact by Court of Appeals are not reviewable
on appeal to Supreme Court unless the former misapprehended
/
material facts in evidence.—More importantly, it was established
that on 21 March 1986, Anita Caoile executed and issued to
Soledad de Jesus a sworn consolidated receipt. Said receipt
includes the P61,000.00 indicated in Exhibit “A-1.” This is an
admission by Anita that the total purchase price of P120,000.00
was in fact received by her alone. As correctly found by the trial
court, no conspiracy among Caoile, Domingo and Gatchalian was
proven by Soledad de Jesus. We are thus unable to find any valid
basis for holding Gatchalian solidarity liable with Anita Caoile in
the amount of P61,000.00. The public respondent’s ruling in this
regard is unsupported by the evidence. It either overlooked or
misapprehended some material facts established in evidence or
drew incorrect inferences therefrom. Hence, there is every reason
for us to depart from the general rule that the findings of fact of
the Court of Appeals are binding upon us.

PETITION for review of the decision of the Court of

Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Roberto Sanggalang for petitioners.
     Eufracio T. Layag for private respondent.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

**
Petitioner Erlinda Gatchalian seeks to set aside the
Decision

_______________

** The inclusion of Anita Caoile as another petitioner in the caption is

erroneous as she did not appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals.

660

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caoile vs. Court of Appeals

1
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 26439 which
modified the Decision of Branch 53 of the2 Regional Trial
Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 86-36543 by holding her
jointly and severally liable with Anita Caoile to the
appellants in the sum of P61,000.00 with its interest of 12%
per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint until
full payment.”
The facts of the case as found by the trial court and
adopted by the public respondent are as follows:
Sometime in January 1986, Soledad de Jesus met
Erlinda Domingo (hereinafter Domingo), a resident of
Sterling Life Homes, Las Piñas, Metro Manila. Soledad de
Jesus intimated to Domingo that she was interested in /
buying a residential lot. Upon reaching home, Domingo got
in touch with her “kumadre,” Erlinda Gatchalian
(hereinafter Gatchalian), also a resident of Sterling Life
Homes, and informed her of Soledad de Jesus’ desire to buy
a residential lot. Gatchalian told Domingo that she knew of
a lot for sale in the subdivision. A Caridad Tameta also
informed Soledad about the said lot. Soledad, together with
Tess Tameta (sister of Caridad), Domingo and Gatchalian,
inspected the lot, which was identified as Lot No. 5, Block 8
of the subdivision. She decided to buy it.
Thereafter, accompanied by Domingo and Gatchalian,
Soledad went to the office of Sterling Life Assurance
Corporation, the developer of Sterling Life Homes
Subdivision, at the Sterling Life Condominium, Legaspi
Village, Makati, Metro Manila. Soledad was introduced to
Anita Caoile, Chief Accountant and Assistant Vice-
President of Sterling Life Assurance Corporation. Anita
assured Soledad that the lot was for sale and gave the
latter a photocopy of the certificate of title over the lot (TCT
No. S-16655) in the name of the corporation. The lot has an
area of two hundred forty (240) square meters. Anita
required Soledad to pay P10,000.00 as a deposit for the lot
on 3 February 1986, which the latter paid as evidenced
3
by
a receipt signed by Anita Caoile as “agent.” The total
agreed price for the lot was P120,000.00 or

_______________

1 Per Associate Justice Serafin E. Camilon, concurred in by Associate

Justices Jorge S. Imperial and Cancio C. Garcia.
2 Entitled “Soledad F. De Jesus, et al. vs. Anita Caoile, et al.”
3 Exhibit “A,” “A-2”; Exhibit “2.”

661

VOL. 226, SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 661

Caoile vs. Court of Appeals

4
P500.00 per square meter. Soledad verified the status of
the property from the Register of Deeds of Makati and was
informed that the lot was not mortgaged and was still in
the name of the Sterling Life Assurance Corporation. On 5
February 1986, Soledad paid a second installment in the
amount of P61,000.00 to Anita Caoile at the office, a receipt
for which was signed by5 Anita as “agent” and by
Gatchalian, also as “agent.” On 18 March 1986, Soledad
paid another installment in the amount of P39,000.00 to
Anita Caoile when the latter went alone6
to the former’s
house. Anita issued a receipt therefor. Soledad paid the
balance of P10,000.00 to Anita Caoile on 21 March 1986 /
and the latter issued a consolidated receipt, under oath, in
the total sum of P120,000.00 “as full payment of Lot 5,
Block 8,
7
Sterling Life Homes Subdivision, Pamplona, Las
Piñas.”
After she had fully paid the price of the lot, Soledad de
Jesus demanded from Anita Caoile the delivery of the
corresponding Deed of Sale and the Transfer Certificate of
Title but the latter could not comply. Soledad then
discovered upon inquiry from Alberto N. Villareal, Vice-
President of Sterling Life Assurance Corporation, that
Anita was not authorized to sell the lot, that Lot No. 5 was
sold to one Ruben Rodis under a Memorandum of
Agreement dated 29 December 1977 and a Contract to Sell,
that Anita was forced to resign from Sterling Life
Assurance Corporation because of the anomalies she
committed in the corporation, and that she had not been
reporting for work since May 1986. Soledad thus filed a
complaint for a sum of money against Caoile, Domingo,
Gatchalian and Sterling Life Assurance Corporation with
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which was docketed as
Civil Case 8No. 86-36543 and raffled off to Branch 53 of the
said court.
In due course, the trial court rendered a judgment on 12
January 1990 against defendant Anita Caoile only. The
dispositive portion thereof reads:

_______________

4 Exhibit “B”; Exhibit “1”-Gatchalian and Domingo.

5 Exhibit “A-1”; Exhibit “2-A.”
6Exhibit “A-3”; Exhibit “2-C.”
7 Exhibit “B”; Exhibit “1”-Gatchalian and Domingo.
8 Rollo, 7.

662

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caoile vs. Court of Appeals

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the

plaintiff and against defendant Anita Caoile, ordering the latter
to pay the plaintiff the amount of P120,000.00, plus interest
thereon at the rate of twelve (12%) percent per annum from the
date of the filing of the complaint until the same is fully paid;
attorney’s fees equivalent to twenty percent (20%) of the amount
due, plus costs of suit.
Plaintiffs’ complaint with respect to the other defendants
Erlinda Gatchalian, Erlinda Domingo and Sterling Life Assurance
Corporation are hereby dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
/
 The respective counterclaims filed by the defendants Erlinda
Gatchalian and Erlinda Domingo, and the defendant
9
Sterling Life
Assurance Corporation, are likewise dismissed.”

In dismissing the complaint against Domingo and

Gatchalian, the trial court made the following findings:

“The Court does not also find sufficient evidence to hold

defendants Erlinda Gatchalian and Erlinda Domingo liable to the
plaintiff for the transaction involved herein. It does not appear
that Domingo and Gatchalian knew that the said lot was no
longer available for sale x x x at the time they tried to help the
plaintiff buy the lot from the defendant Sterling Life Assurance
Corporation. While it is true that defendant Gatchalian co-signed
with defendant Caoile the receipt, dated February 5, 1986, for
P61,000.00 (Exh. A-1; Exh. 2-A), there is no evidence to show that
she received a commission and how much, if any, from the
defendant Caoile who acknowledged having received the total
amount of P120,000.00 from the plaintiff shows that she actually
received the said amount, and must take full responsibility
therefore. As a matter of fact, when the plaintiff testified on cross-
examination on August 6, 1987, in answer to questions
propounded by counsel for defendants Domingo and Gatchalian,
she stated that defendant Domingo did not receive any amount
from her, and that she does not know if defendants Domingo and
Gatchalian had any commission from defendant Caoile. The
defendants Domingo and Gatchalian are actually lot owners in
the Sterling Life Homes Subdivision and were trying to help the
plaintiff purchase the lot in question from the defendant Sterling
Life Assurance Corporation.
The defendant Gatchalian is a mere third grader. It was the
defendant Caoile who prepared the receipt for P61,000.00.
According to defendant Gatchalian, she was asked by the
‘defendant Caoile to sign the said receipt for P61,000.00 as a
witness thereof. Defendant

_______________

9 Id., 24-25.

663

VOL. 226, SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 663

Caoile vs. Court of Appeals

Gatchalian did not sign any other receipts (See: Exhs. A, A-2, A-3,
and B). It would not also be amiss to state that while the plaintiff
filed a complaint for Estafa against the defendant Anita Caoile y
Sison, she did not include the two (2) other defendants Domingo
and Gatchalian, and that an Information for Estafa, dated June
16, 1986, was filed only against the defendant Caoile in Criminal
/
Case No. 86-45988 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Exh. E).
Why? Evidently, the plaintiff herself was not convinced that
defendants Domingo and Gatchalian conspired with the
defendant Caoile.
The evidence also shows that the plaintiff never asked for
reimbursement of any amount from the defendants Domingo and
Gatchalian before filing this case, unlike in the case of defendant
Caoile whom [s]he asked to reimburse the said amount of
P120,000.00 when the latter could not deliver the corresponding
Deed of Sale in her favor, as well10
as the aforementioned Transfer
Certificate of Title No. S-16655.”

Not satisfied with the decision of the trial court, Soledad de

Jesus appealed to the Court of Appeals on the lone issue of
whether or not defendants Domingo, Gatchalian and
Sterling Life Assurance Corporation are jointly and
severally liable with Anita Caoile for the sum of
P120,000.00. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
26439. As adverted to in the beginning,11 the Court of
Appeals, in its Decision of 10 June 1992, modified the
appealed decision by holding Gatchalian jointly and
severally liable with Anita Caoile in the amount of
P61,000.00. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED

but with the modification consisting of declaring Eerlinda [sic]
Gatchalian jointly and severally liable with Anita Caoile to the
appellants in the sum of P61,000.00 with its interest of 12% per
annum from the date of the filing of the complaint until full
payment.”

The reason for the said modification is stated by the Court

of Appeals thus:

“We note that Erlinda Gatchalian must be held accountable for at

least a part of the money paid by appellants. A receipt, Exh. A, A-
1; Exh. 4, 4-A, and dated February 5, 1986, reads:

_______________

10 Rollo, 29-31.
11 Annex “A” of Petition; Rollo, 24-34.

664

664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caoile vs. Court of Appeals

‘Received from Mrs. Soledad F. de Jesus of 1811 G. Rivera St., Kahilom,

Pandacan, Manila, the sum of SIXTY ONE THOUSAND PESOS only as

/
partial payment on Block 8, Lot 5 of Sterling Life Homes Subdivision in
Pamplona, Las Piñas.
Received by:     
(Sgd.) Anita S. Caoile
Agent     
and     
(Sgd.) Erlinda Gatchalian
12

Agent’”      

In her motion for reconsideration, Gatchalian alleged that

there was a misapprehension of facts on the part of the
Court of Appeals because there is no evidence that she
received a commission or any amount from Soledad de
Jesus or from Anita Caoile, for which reason the trial court
did not hold her liable.
On 3 September 1992, the Court of Appeals denied the
motion for reconsideration in this wise:

“The premise for the finding of liability was not that Gatchalian
‘actually received a commission x x x.’ The receipt, EXH. A dated
February 5, 1986 clearly indicates that Gatchalian received
jointly with Caoile, the sum of P61,000.00 from appellant
(Decision, p. 10). Regardless of whether a commission was paid,
there is no escaping the conclusion derived from the receipt, and
admitted by Gatchalian, that she received the amount of
P61,000.00. With this as premise, it was incumbent on Gatchalian
to explain the13disposition of the money, a burden which she failed
to discharge.”

Gatchalian then filed this petition on 24 October 1992 after

obtaining an extension of time within which to do so. We
resolved to give due course to the petition after the private
respondents had filed the required comment.
The only issue of importance in this case is whether on
the sole basis of the receipt for P61,000.00, which she
signed as “agent” with Anita Caoile, the petitioner became
solidarily liable with Anita. The petitioner maintains that
she could not be liable

_______________

12 Id., 33.
13 Annex “B” of Petition; Rollo, 36.

665

VOL. 226, SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 665

Caoile vs. Court of Appeals

thereon for the reasons explicitly stated by the trial court.

Private respondents, on the other hand, urge us to uphold /
the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
We find the petition to be meritorious.
Both the Court of Appeals and the private respondents
placed undue emphasis and reliance upon the word “agent”
typed below the signature of the petitioner in the receipt in
question. The trial court, however, observed and concluded
that:

“It was the defendant Caoile who prepared the receipt for
P61,000.00. According to defendant Gatchalian, she was asked by
the defendant Caoile to sign the said receipt for P61,000.00 as a
witness thereof.
14
Defendant Gatchalian did not sign any other
receipts.”

There is as well no evidence to show that it was Gatchalian

who received the P61,000.00. That Soledad did not include
Gatchalian as a co-respondent of Anita in the estafa case
and did not demand reimbursement from Gatchalian before
filing Civil Case No. 86-36543 are strong indications that
the latter never received anything on account of the subject
transaction.
More importantly, it was established that on 21 March
1986, Anita Caoile executed and 15
issued to Soledad de Jesus
a sworn consolidated receipt. Said receipt includes the
P61,000.00 indicated in Exhibit “A-1.” This is an admission
by Anita that the total purchase price of P120,000.00 was
in fact received by her alone. As correctly found by the trial
court, no conspiracy among Caoile, Domingo and
Gatchalian was proven by Soledad de Jesus. We are thus
unable to find any valid basis for holding Gatchalian
solidarily liable with Anita Caoile in the amount of
P61,000.00. The public respondent’s ruling in this regard is
unsupported by the evidence. It either overlooked or
misapprehended some material facts established in
evidence or drew incorrect inferences therefrom. Hence,
there is every reason for us to depart from the general rule
that the 16findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding
upon us.

_______________

14 Rollo, 30-31.
15 Exhibit “B”; Exhibit “1”-Gatchalian and Domingo.
16 Remalante vs. Tibe, 158 SCRA 138 [1988]; Cruz vs. Court of Appeals,
201 SCRA 495 [1991]; Borillo vs. Court of Appeals, 209 SSCRA 130 [1992].

666

666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Enriquez vs. Boyles
/
 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
decision appealed from is SET ASIDE and the decision of
Branch 53 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil
Case No. 86-36543 is REINSTATED.
Costs against the private respondents.
SO ORDERED.

          Cruz (Chairman), Bellosillo and Quiason, JJ.,

concur.
     Griño-Aquino, J., On leave.

Petition granted. Appealed decision set aside.

Note.—The rule that findings of fact of the Court of

Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on
appeal admits certain exceptions to wit: when the findings
of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
in which they are based, or the appellate court’s findings
are contrary to those of the trial court (Universal Motors
Corporation vs. Court of Ap-peals, 205 SCRA 448).

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.