China Road and Bridge Corp. v. CA

ROMASANTA, GALILEE J.
Civil Procedure Case Digest

2nd Year John Wesley School of Law and Governance
China Road and Bridge Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

348 SCRA 404, G.R. No. 137898, Dec. 15, 2000
Petitioners: CHINA ROAD AND BRIDGE CORPORATION
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS (Special Seventh Division) and JADE PROGRESSIVE AND MORTGAGE BANK
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
FACTS:
Petitioner CHINA ROAD AND BRIDGE CORPORATION (CRBC), a corporation organized under
the laws of China and duly licensed by SEC to do business in the Philippines, was awarded by
the Phil. Govt the contract to construct the EDSA Shaw Boulevard Overpass in Mandaluyong,
which it subcontracted to HiQuality Builders and Traders, Inc. (HIQUALITY), a domestic
corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines.
17 October 1996 - Helen Ambrosio, President of HIQUALITY, executed a Continuing Suretyship
in favor of Jade Progressive Savings and Mortgage Bank (JADEBANK) binding herself to pay the
obligations of HiQuality arising from all credit accommodations extended by JadeBank.
10 January 1997 - in consideration of a P5,000,000.00 loan, HIQUALITY executed a Deed of
Assignment in favor of JADEBANK with the approval of CRBC where it assigned to JADEBANK
all monthly accomplishment billings, the sums of money, credit, or receivables assigned, be in the
position of or due or to be due from China Road and Bridge Corporation, arising from the
subcontract agreement in the construction of the EDSA/Shaw Blvd. Overpass Project.
17 January 1997 - JADEBANK released to HIQUALITY P500,000.00 as part of the loan earlier
contracted. As security, HIQUALITY executed Promissory Note and indorsed to JADEBANK a
CRBC-issued check on 31 March 1997 for the amount released, drawn on UCPB.
7 April 1997 - JADEBANK released P250,000.00 for which HIQUALITY executed Promissory
Note and indorsed to JADEBANK a check issued by Helen Ambrosio on 18 April 1997 for the
amount released, drawn on ALLIEDBANK.
21 March 1997 - JADEBANK released P250,000.00 for which HIQUALITY executed Promissory
Note and indorsed to JADEBANK, an ALLIEDBANK Check issued by Ambrosio dated 30 April
1997 for the same amount.
25 March 1997 - JADEBANK released P400,000.00 for which HIQUALITY executed Promissory
Note and indorsed to JADEBANK a check issued by Ambrosio dated 30 April 1997 for the same
amount, drawn on SECURITYBANK.
7 February 1997 - JADEBANK released another P400,000.00 for which HIQUALITY executed
Promissory Note and indorsed to JADEBANK, a UCPB Check issued by CRBC.
17 February 1997 - JADEBANK released P350,000.00 for which HIQUALITY executed
21 February 1997 - JADEBANK released P250,000.00 for which HIQUALITY executed
All the promissory notes provided for 25% interest per annum and a 5% penalty per month in
case of default.
When JADEBANK deposited the checks, they were returned unpaid. The checks drawn on UCPB
were dishonored due to Stop Payment orders. The ALLIEDBANK checks were dishonored
because the account was closed on 19 February 1997. The SECURITYBANK check was
dishonored because the account had been closed since the second quarter of 1996.
9 June 1997 - after repeated demands which were unheeded, JADEBANK filed a case for
collection against HIQUALITY, Helen Ambrosio and CRBC, with an application for a writ of
attachment against their properties, including as cause of action the first 4 checks indorsed by
HIQUALITY to JADEBANK and alleging that the defendants conspired to commit fraudulent acts
to induce JADEBANK to grant the loans to HIQUALITY. Firstly, CRBC issued to HIQUALITY the
UCPB check for P500,000.00 without any intention of honoring the check. JADEBANK alleged
that CRBC knew that the check was to be used by HIQUALITY as security for JADEBANK.
However, in violation of the Deed of Assignment, CRBC gave to HIQUALITY sums of money
without notice to JADEBANK, thereby releasing funds already assigned to JADEBANK for the
payment of HIQUALITYs loans. Secondly, Helen Ambrosio, issued the checks drawn on
SECURITYBANK and ALLIEDBANK after her accounts were closed, thus revealing a fraudulent
intention not to honor her obligations even from their inception. She also executed the Suretyship
Agreement in favor of JADEBANK without any intention of fulfilling her obligations.
Page 1 of 3
17 June 1997 Trial court issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment. On the same day, a Notice of
Garnishment was served on UCPB garnishing all the Motion for Discharge of Attachment and
Notice of Levy on Attachment was also served on CRBC.
27 June 1997 the preliminary attachment was discharged after CRBC posted a counter-bond.
30 June 1997 JADEBANK filed an Amended Complaint to include the loans contracted on 7, 17
and 21 February 1997 increasing the total amount collectible to P3,437,424.42.
28 July 1997 - CRBC filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the ground of lack of cause of
action. According to CRBC, the Deed of Assignment upon which JADEBANK based its cause of
action against CRBC, was subject to the Subcontracting Agreement between CRBC and
HIQUALITY.
CRBC also denied that the issuance of the checks to HIQUALITY was for the purpose of
facilitating the loans in favor of the latter, claiming that the checks were for the use of HIQUALITY
alone, and not for any other purpose. In support of this claim, CRBC asserted that nowhere on
the face of the said check does the name of the plaintiff appear. Neither is it accompanied by any
document specifically evincing that the same was intended for delivery to plaintiff. CRBC also
denied that it had been releasing money to HIQUALITY, claiming that the latter had failed to
comply with its obligations to CRBC.
27 August 1997 - lower court granted the Motion to Dismiss the complaint with respect to CRBC.
Its Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
31 June 1997 - JADEBANK appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41.
12 August 1997 CRBC filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion to Dismiss Appeal asserting that
the determination of whether the ultimate facts in a Complaint state a cause of action against the
defendant is a pure question of law and does not involve any question of fact. According to
CRBC, the proper mode of appeal was by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
29 October 1998 - Court of Appeals (Special Seventh Division) issued the assailed Resolution
denying CRBCs Motion to Dismiss, finding the appeal involved both questions of fact and of law.
5 February 1999 the appellate court denied reconsideration hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in denying petitioners Motion to Dismiss.
HELD: YES. It is necessary to determine only if private respondents appeal to the Court of Appeals
involved purely questions of law, in which case the proper mode of appeal would be a petition for review
on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 or questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law,
in which case the proper mode would be by ordinary appeal under Rule 41.
A question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of
facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of
facts, or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the
credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to
each other and to the whole and probabilities of the situation. Ordinarily, the determination of whether an
appeal involves only questions of law or both questions of law and fact is best left to the appellate court,
and all doubts as to the correctness of such conclusions will be resolved in favor of the Court of Appeals.
However, in the instant case, there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Court of
Appeals, hence, the SC grant the petition.
The test for determining whether a complaint states or does not state a cause of action against the
defendants is whether or not, admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of fact made in the
complaint, the judge may validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint.
In a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action, there cannot be any question of
fact or doubt or difference as to the truth or falsehood of facts, simply because there are no findings of
fact in the first place. What the trial court merely does is to apply the law to the facts as alleged in the
complaint, assuming such allegations to be true. It follows then that any appeal therefrom could only raise
questions of law or doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. Therefore, a
decision dismissing a complaint based on failure to state a cause of action necessarily precludes a review
of the same decision on questions of fact.
Page 2 of 3
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by JADEBANK was resolved by the trial court:
The plaintiff has a right in the collection of the loan but there is no corresponding allegation that China Road has an
obligation to pay. All that is alleged is that China Road agreed that HiQuality Builders will assign its receivables from China
Road and for that purpose appointed plaintiff as Attorney-in-fact
Had there been allegation to the effect that plaintiff, as Attorney-in-fact, of HiQuality Builders collected from China Road
and that China Road refused to deliver the money due HiQuality Builders then a cause of action would have arisen.
The lower court did not make any finding of fact rather, as was proper in a motion to dismiss for this particular ground, it
merely assumed the plaintiffs allegations to be true. It did not evaluate the evidence of the plaintiff nor did it pass upon the
truth or falsity of the plaintiffs allegations. What the lower court did was simply to apply the law as to the facts borne out by
the allegations in the complaint.
Even assuming that all the allegations of JADEBANK were true, it would still not be able to collect from
CRBC because based on the same allegations, CRBC did not have any duty whatsoever to remit money
to JADEBANK. Such a conclusion could only raise pure questions of law.
JADEBANK in its Appellants Brief raised the following questions, which it erroneously designated as
questions of fact, in an attempt to place its appeal within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals:
Whether or not the amended complaint together with the Annexes attached and forming an integral part thereof, states a
sufficient cause of action against the defendant-appellee
Whether or not there was an unwarranted reversal of the Honorable Regional Trial Courts Orders stating that the
complaint states a sufficient cause of action
Whether or not the Motion to Dismiss the complaint can be considered also as a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.
These issues raised by JADEBANK could not be properly denominated questions of fact. The test of
whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party
raising the same rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without
reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law otherwise, it is a
question of fact. Applying the test to the instant case, it is clear that private respondent raises pure
questions of law which are not proper in an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, but should be raised
by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
JADEBANKs appeal having been improperly brought before the Court of Appeals, it should be dismissed
outright pursuant to Sec. 2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Sec. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals.An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the
Court of Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by the said court x x x x
Petition for certiorari is GRANTED.

Court of Appeals decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Page 3 of 3

China Road and Bridge Corp. v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

China Road and Bridge Corp. v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

China Road and Bridge Corp. v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROMASANTA, GALILEE J.

Civil Procedure Case Digest

China Road and Bridge Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

Petition for certiorari is GRANTED.

You might also like