You are on page 1of 2

Local Superior of the Servants of Charity v Jody King Const.

Limited review
Facts:
1. Petitioner Local Superior (Guanellians) is a religious corporation and co-petitioner Fr.
Luigi is its Local Superior. Respondent Jody King is the lowest bidder for their intended
apostolic mission structures.
2. Initially, the project costs 14M. After a series of reduction of scope of works, the total cost
was 5.3M
3. The construction period is for 150 days, and during which, a total of 132 additional
works were added to the construction project despite the no-escalation clause of the
contract
4. When Respondent Jody King Const. submitted their billing on Oct 1993, Petitioners
questioned the basis of the bill and refused to acknowledge that they are due and
demandable
5. Respondent filed a complaint for breach of contract and specific performance before the
RTC
a. RTC ruled IFO Respondent. Monetary awards and legal interest awarded
6. Petitioners appeal to CA
a. Affirmed in toto RTC, but modified the legal interest
7. Hence, this petition.
8. SC then required parties to submit their memoranda. In theirs, Petitioners admit that
there were indeed changes in the orders but their costs were fixed and determined and
that they did not significantly alter the terms and conditions of the first contract. The
billing also did not correctly reflect corrective works of deduction, retention money, and
cash advances to Respondent
Issue: W/N SC may review
Held: No.
Ratio:
It is apparent that Petitioner is raising questions of fact and not of law which is beyond the
review of SC. RTC made a factual finding that they indeed should pay, which is affirmed by the
CA. A fortiori is that when the factual findings were affirmed in toto by the CA, there is a great
reason for not disturbing such finding. The following are the only exceptions which are not
present in this case:
1. When RTC and CA factual findings are contradictory
2. When the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures
3. When the inference made by CA is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible
4. When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts (R65?)
5. When the appellate court, in making findings went beyond the issues of the case and
such findings are contradictory to admissions of both appellant and appellee

6. When CA judgment is based on misapprehension of facts


7. When CA failed to notice relevant facts that if considered, would warrant a different
conclusion
8. When the findings of fact are themselves conflicting
9. When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on
which they are based
10. When the findings of CA are premised on evidence but such findings are contradicted
by the evidence on record