G.R. No. 107725 - ESPERO SALAO, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND JOWIE APOLONIO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it rendered judgment against the petitioner. The trial court also denied petitioners subsequent motion for reconsideration and new trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision in toto and later denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then brought this appeal questioning the award of damages and attorneys fees to private respondent. In his Reply to Private Respondents Comment, he raised as additional ground the fact that in the criminal case for serious physical injuries and grave threats based on the same incident, the Municipal Trial Court of Obando, Bulacan found him not guilty and accordingly dismissed the case against him. The appeal is without merit. First. It is settled that issues not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal in this Court without violating the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process. [11] In the case at bar, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning two errors allegedly committed by the trial court, to wit: The Trial Court erred in taking cognizance of and hearing the case without plaintiff first availing the conciliation process provided by PD 1508; and The Trial Court erred in denying defendant-appellants motion for reconsideration and alternatively motion for new trial. The propriety of such award of damages and the effect of petitioners acquittal in the criminal cases were not questioned by petitioner. Consequently, he is barred from raising these questions for the first time in this appeal. Second. Petitioner has not shown that the award of damages is not supported by evidence. For example, the award of P20,000.00 for actual damages is based on hospital bills and receipts for medicine which private respondent properly identified in court and formally offered in evidence. [12] That private respondent is competent to testify regarding the authenticity and due execution of these documents is beyond doubt. Rule 132, §20 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides: §20. Proof of private document. - Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b) By evidence of the genuiness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. Needless to say, this factual finding of the trial court, especially because it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and petitioner in this case has presented no rebutting evidence, is well nigh conclusive in this appeal. [13] The award of P10,000.00 for moral damages is likewise appropriate. This being a case of physical injuries resulting from a crime or quasi-delict, moral damages may be awarded in the discretion of the court, as provided by Art. 2219(1) or (2) of the Civil Code. The evidence gives no ground for doubt that such discretion was properly and jud