G.R. NO. 152922 - DAKILA TRADING CORPORATION, VS. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered: I. On plaintiff's complaint: Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P1,684,219.82 as actual damages representing the value of the unreported tests, with 12% interest from February 6, 1992, the date of the filing of the complaint, until fully paid; Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P8,000.00 as attorney's fees; and Ordering defendant to pay costs. II. On defendant's counterclaims: Upon full payment by the defendant of the amount of P1,684,219.82 plus accrued interest as above adverted to, plaintiff is directed to execute the deed of absolute sale and proper documentations to transfer ownership of the TECHNICON RA 1000 Analyzer with Data Manager to defendant. DISMISSING the other counterclaims of defendant. [4] Aggrieved by the Decision of the RTC, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was subsequently denied by the lower court. Thereafter, respondent filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. On 26 March 2002, the appellate court rendered the assailed Decision, reversing the Decision of the RTC and dismissing petitioner's complaint for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals further ordered petitioner to prepare the Deed of Absolute Sale and proper documentation to transfer ownership of the "TECHNICON RA 1000" to respondent. Hence, the instant Petition. At the outset, we must first emphasize that this Court is not a trier of facts. This Court, in numerous instances, have had occasion to explain that it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. However, we have also ruled that there are instances when this Court may resolve factual issues, such as: 1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; 2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; 3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; 4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; 5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; 6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; 7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; 8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; 9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; 10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or 11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. [5] Consequently, in order to settle the controversy before us, this Court has decide to review the evidence presented before the trial court. It is clear from the Lease-Purchase Agreement signed by both parties that the