Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation vs. Chua Uy, Jr.

In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Supreme Court may review factual findings when the findings of the lower courts are conflicting; furthermore, preponderance of evidence is established when the evidence presented by one side is more convincing than that of the other, and the trial court's assessment of witness credibility deserves great weight and is conclusive unless tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of a fact of weight and influence.

The case arose from the employment relationship between Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation and Charlie Chua Uy, Jr., who was assigned as material handling officer at Cathay's Novaliches plant. In this capacity, Uy was responsible for monitoring steel products, authorizing their release, and handling cash sales of "retazos" (special assorted steel bars), with the specific duty to accept cash payments and remit them immediately to the company's treasury department.

• Cathay hired Uy in February 1996 as section supervisor and later assigned him as material handling officer at the Novaliches plant in 1999.
• As material handling officer, Uy was tasked to monitor, check, and authorize the release of steel products, and to handle the sale of "retazos" (below standard length steel bars) on a strictly cash transaction basis.
• Uy's signature was required on Scrap Miscellaneous Sales (SMS) delivery receipts to authorize the release of retazos, which also served as a gate pass; without his signature, the products could not leave the plant premises.
• In March 2008, Cathay's management conducted a special audit of retazos sales for the first quarter of 2008 and discovered that cash proceeds from five transactions in February 2008, covered by delivery receipts bearing Uy's signature and amounting to P409,280.00, were not remitted to the treasury department.
• On May 29, 2008, Cathay sent a demand letter to Uy requiring payment within five days, but Uy failed to pay or settle the obligation.
• Uy submitted a resignation letter which Cathay refused to accept; instead, Cathay sent letters requiring him to report for work, which he failed to do.
• Cathay filed a civil case for collection and a criminal complaint for qualified theft against Uy; the criminal complaint was dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor.
• The RTC ruled in favor of Cathay, finding that Uy had the duty to accept cash payment and failed to remit the proceeds.
• The CA reversed the RTC, noting that the statements of account presented were dated June 1, 2011 (nearly three years after the complaint), the statement of account for SMS No. 2276 did not reflect any unpaid balance, and there were discrepancies between the delivery receipts in the civil case and those in the criminal case.
• The Supreme Court found that Cathay proved liability for four transactions totaling P391,155.00, excluding SMS No. 2276 (P18,125.00) which was included due to an oversight and lacked proof of unpaid balance.

• The CA misappreciated the evidence when it reversed the RTC's decision, as Cathay was able to prove by preponderance of evidence its cause of action through the testimonies of Elmer San Gabriel, Gerardo Capitulo, and Angelito Ong, and through documentary evidence consisting of delivery receipts and statements of account.
• The inclusion of SMS No. 2276 in the computation of the total claim was a mere oversight; even excluding this, Cathay still proved unremitted payments amounting to P391,155.00.
• The statements of account dated June 1, 2011 were merely updated to reflect the up-to-date outstanding balance of customers and did not preclude their use in the 2008 audit; what matters is that they contained the entries for February 2008.
• The discrepancies between the delivery receipts in the civil case and those in the criminal case are irrelevant because the criminal case covered transactions from January 2008, while the civil case covered February 2008 transactions.

• The Petition raises questions of fact which are not allowed in a Rule 45 petition, as the Court's jurisdiction is limited to questions of law.
• The Petition utterly lacks merit and is dilatory in nature, and should therefore be denied outright.

• Procedural: Whether the Supreme Court may review the factual findings of the lower courts in a Rule 45 petition despite the general rule limiting review to questions of law.
• Substantive Issues: Whether Cathay was able to prove by preponderance of evidence Uy's liability for the unremitted payments from the sale of retazos.

• Procedural: Yes, the Supreme Court may review factual findings when the findings of the lower courts are conflicting. While the Court's jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to questions of law because it is not a trier of facts, the rule admits of exceptions, including when the factual findings of the RTC and the CA are conflicting, as in this case.
• Substantive: Yes, Cathay established by preponderance of evidence that Uy was liable for P391,155.00. The collective testimonies of Cathay's witnesses sufficiently established that Uy had the duty to accept cash payment before authorizing the release of retazos. The delivery receipts bore Uy's signature, which he never denied, proving he authorized the release. Because the retazos were sold on a cash transaction basis, his authorization implied acceptance of payment. The statements of account showed unpaid balances for four transactions. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility deserved great weight. The amount was reduced by P18,125.00 (SMS No. 2276) due to lack of proof of unpaid balance, resulting in a total liability of P391,155.00 with interest of 12% per annum from July 15, 2008 until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction.

• Preponderance of Evidence — Defined as "evidence which is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which is in opposition to it," meaning the testimony of one side is more believable than the other, and the probability of truth is on one side. The court may consider all facts and circumstances, witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, means of knowing facts, nature of facts, probability or improbability of testimony, interest or want of interest, and personal credibility.
• Rule 45 Review Limited to Questions of Law — The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and generally reviews only questions of law, but admits exceptions including when the factual findings of the lower courts are conflicting.
• Trial Court's Assessment of Credibility — The trial court's assessment of witness credibility deserves great weight and is conclusive and binding unless tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.

• "Preponderance of evidence 'does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony of one side is more believable than that of the other side, and that the probability of truth is on one side than on the other.'"
• "When it comes to [the witnesses'] credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, unless the same is tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence."
• "The Court's jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to the review of questions of law because the Court is not a trier of facts. However, the rule admits of exceptions, including when the factual findings of the lower courts are conflicting."

• General Mariano Alvarez Services Cooperative, Inc. v. National Housing Authority, 753 Phil. 353 (2015) — Cited for the principle that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts in Rule 45 petitions.
• Laborre v. Pagsanjan Tourism Consumers' Cooperative, 724 Phil. 434 (2014) — Cited for the exception that the Court may review factual findings when they are conflicting.
• Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Reyes, 568 Phil. 188 (2008) — Cited for the definition of preponderance of evidence.
• Gatan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257 (2017) — Cited for the principle regarding the trial court's assessment of witness credibility.

• Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court — Provides that petitions for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
• Rule 133, Section 1 of the Rules of Court — Provides guidelines on how preponderance of evidence is determined in civil cases, including the factors courts may consider in determining where the superior weight of evidence lies.